President Donald Trump and his allies seem to realize that they've dug themselves a hole in attacking former Vice President Joe Biden as mentally unfit. With expectations so low, a Biden win in the first debates are almost assured, even with a Fox News host.
In a discussion Tuesday, Trump began to pivot away from his non-stop advertising attacking Biden's cognitive abilities and instead claim Biden is a "professional" who knows what he's doing.
"Maybe that would work if the president himself had not been saying this about Biden on repeat for the entirety of the campaign," said CNN host Brianna Keilar.
She showed a series of videos with Trump blasting Biden as "not all there" and "he doesn't know he's alive."
"It's totally baseless," said Keilar. "And now one week to the first debate president Trump, who is the most prominent purveyor of conspiracy theories in America is floating this one about Joe Biden."
She played the video from Trump speaking to an Ohio audience saying that Biden will get a "shot" or some kind of amphetamine that will make him smarter. It's why Trump is calling for a drug test, claiming that he too would take one.
A drug test could also tell a lot about Trump's health and the drugs he's taking if he concedes to actually giving one.
"Let's get this straight: Trump has been baselessly claiming that Biden is 'not with it' for months now," she explained. "Now he's so in doubt about why Biden is so 'with it' that he's covering all his bases, I guess. He's saying if you think Biden seems normal, it's because it's drug-induced? This has no basis in fact. He's just making stuff up. But it's designed to make you wonder, to creep into your head and stick because that's how conspiracy theories take hold. He's planting a seed and his state-run news channel and its on-staff doctor is watering the hell out of it."
She showed a clip of Fox News Dr. Marc Siegel asking why Trump would be talking about drug tests before a debate. While many would assume it was because Trump was the one thinking about doing drugs to boost his energy after a series of lackluster or "sedated" appearances.
Keilor noted that Dr. Siegel is paid by Fox News not to deliver factual information to viewers, but to make things up on television.
He'll "weaponize his medical credentials against a presidential candidate," she said. It was only late in the interview that he confessed that he's never examined Biden and doesn't have any idea what "condition" Biden could have that would confirm his lies.
Almost a month before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Ian Millhiser penned an article for Vox warning that if President Trump wins in November, "he is likely to remake the courts — and, specifically, the Supreme Court — in his image."
According to Millhiser, if Trump replaced a liberal justice, the checks and balances on GOP power will "likely to disappear."
"To be sure, there’s always some amount of unpredictability in the Supreme Court. Sometimes, a conservative justice is torn between competing ideological commitments, some of which lead them to form occasional alliances with their liberal colleagues. And it’s always possible that several conservative justices could be forced to leave the Court shortly after a Democratic president takes office," Millhiser writes. "But realistically, if Republicans gain a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, they are likely to hold that majority for a long time. And with six votes, Republicans could afford to have one of those six cast an occasional, futile vote for a liberal outcome."
Millhiser contends that among the laws under threat from increased GOP power are the constitutional right to an abortion, the Voting Rights Act, campaign finance reform, the Affordable Care Act, constitutional rights for LGBTQ Americans, environmental protections, and limits on police power to surveil Americans.
With COVID-19 vaccines currently in the final phase of study, you’ve probably been wondering how the FDA will decide if a vaccine is safe and effective.
Based on the status of the Phase 3 trials currently underway, it is unlikely that the results of these trials will be available before November. But it is likely that not just one but several of the competing COVID-19 vaccines will be shown to be safe and effective by the end of 2020.
What is the status of COVID-19 vaccines in human clinical trials?
Phase 3 studies are underway for the Moderna and BioNTech/Pfizer vaccines and the Oxford/AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine.
Each of these vaccines uses the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, which the virus uses to infect cells, to trigger the immune system to generate protective antibodies and a cellular immune response to the virus. Protective antibodies act by preventing the spike glycoprotein from attaching the virus to human cells, thereby neutralizing the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.
In the case of Moderna’s nucleic acid vaccine, the messenger RNA encoding the spike glycoprotein is encased in a fat droplet – called a liposome – to protect the mRNA from degradation and enable it to enter cells. Once these instructions are inside the cells, the mRNA is read by the human cell machinery and made into many spike proteins so that the immune system can respond and begin producing antibodies against this coronavirus.
The Oxford/AstraZeneca uses a different strategy to activate an immune response. Here an adenovirus found in chimpanzees shuttles the instructions for manufacturing the spike glycoprotein into cells.
Animal tests show the vaccines provide protection from coronavirus infection
Studies in animal models of COVID-19 provide convincing evidence that vaccination with the spike glycoprotein will protect from COVID-19. Experiments have show that when the immune system is shown the spike protein – which alone cannot trigger disease – the immune system will generate an antibody response that protects from infection with SARS-CoV-2.
In studies in hamsters an adenovirus viral vector – the approach used by Oxford/AstraZeneca, for example – was used to immunize with the Spike glycoprotein. When the hamsters were infected with SARS-CoV-2 they were protected from pneumonia, weight loss and death.
In nonhuman primates, DNA vaccines – which deliver the gene for the spike glycoprotein – reduced the amount of virus in the lungs. Animals that produced antibody that prevented virus attachment to human cells were most likely to be protected.
History of vaccines: Smallpox to SARS-CoV-2.
What have the early Phase 1 and 2 studies in humans shown?
But Phase 1 and 2 studies are by small by design, with just hundreds of participants. So these trials will not be large enough to detect uncommon or rare side effects.
The emphasis on safety as the primary goal was recently demonstrated in the Phase 3 Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine trial where one vaccinated individual developed inflammation of the spinal cord. It isn’t clear whether the vaccine caused this reaction – it might be a new case of multiple sclerosis unrelated to the vaccine – but the Phase 3 trial was halted in the U.S. until more is known.
How is the FDA ensuring that a vaccine will be safe yet quickly produced?
The FDA has issued guidance for industry on the steps required for developing and ultimately licensing vaccines to prevent COVID-19 – these are the same rigorous safety standards required for all vaccines.
There are, however, ways to speed the process of approval that are centered on “platform technology.” What this means is that if a vaccine is using an approach such as an adenovirus that has previously been shown to be safe, it may be possible for a company to use previously collected data on toxicity and pharmacokinetics to fast-track clinical trial approval.
While speed and safety may appear conflicting goals, it is also encouraging to note that the rival vaccine manufacturers have jointly pledged not to bow to any political pressures to rush vaccine approval, but to maintain the most rigorous safety standards.
How to develop a vaccine, quickly.
How protective does a vaccine need be to receive FDA approval?
The FDA has set the bar for the primary endpoint of a Phase 3 trial of 50% protection for approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Protection is defined as protection from symptomatic COVID-19 infection, defined as laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection plus symptoms such as fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle aches, loss of taste or smell, congestion or runny nose, diarrhea, nausea or vomiting.
This means that an effective vaccine is considered one that will reduce the number of infections in vaccine recipients by half. This is the minimal protection that is anticipated to be clinically useful. That is, in part, because lower levels of efficacy could paradoxically increase COVID-19 infections if it leads vaccinated people to decrease mask wearing or social distancing because they think they are completely protected.
Since a vaccine might be more effective at preventing severe COVID-19, the FDA instructs that protection from severe COVID-19 should be a secondary endpoint.
How many people have to be vaccinated to know if a vaccine works in Phase 3?
The current Phase 3 trials are enrolling 30,000-40,000 subjects. Most of these participants will receive the vaccine and some a placebo.
When, exactly, the results of Phase 3 studies will be released depends in large part on the rate of infection in the placebo recipients. The way that these vaccine studies work is that they test if naturally acquired new coronavirus infections are lower in the group that received the vaccine compared with the group receiving the placebo.
So while it is good news that COVID-19 infections have dropped recently in the U.S. from 70,000 to 40,000 cases per day, this drop in new infections may slow the vaccine studies.
Will Emergency Use Authorization fast-track vaccine?
In an emergency such as we are faced with the COVID-19 pandemic, with approximately 700 new deaths and 40,000 new cases per day right now, the FDA is authorized to allow the use of unapproved products for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease. That includes a vaccine.
The standard approval process for vaccines can require more than one year of observation after vaccination. If the short-term safety is good and the vaccine works to prevent COVID-19, then the vaccine should be approved for use under an Emergency Use Authorization while it is still being studied.
Under Emergency Use Authorization, the FDA will continue to collect information from the companies producing the vaccines for benefit and harm, including surveillance for vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease or other potentially rare complications that might be observed in only one in a million.
What should we expect in terms of approvals?
I expect that the FDA will approve several vaccines by the end of 2020 under its Emergency Use Authorization authority so that vaccination can begin immediately, starting with high-risk groups including first responders, health care personnel, and the elderly and those with preexisting medical conditions.
This will be followed rapidly with roll-out of vaccination to the population at large, while all of the time the FDA and vaccine manufacturers will continue to monitor for side effects and work to improve upon these first vaccines. This process is expected to take months.
It may not be life back to normal next year, but all signs point to a healthier 2021.
At the White House press briefing Tuesday, Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg announced that a former aide to Mike Pence on the coronavirus task force was personally fired by him and escorted from the building.
"I'm not proud of Olivia," he said of Olivia Troye.
In a fact-check of Kellogg, Troye said that it was false, and that she wrote a resignation letter that has even been cited by the White House. No one walked her out of the building after she resigned.
Kellogg also sent her a special coin with his name on it to thank her for her service. It was something she posted to her personal social media on Aug. 15, talking about how much she loved him.
"This gift is not the action of someone who did what Kellogg claims he did," she said.
— (@)
— (@)
Troye came out against Trump in a "Republicans Against Trump" video and outlined the president's behavior she found concerning during the coronavirus pandemic. The White House responded with character assassination, saying Troye was a lackluster staffer and belittled her for not being able to do the job she'd had for nearly two decades under three presidents.
During a segment on CNN this Tuesday, White House correspondent Jim Acosta recounted his challenging of Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany over President Trump's recent comments where he claimed coronavirus affects "virtually nobody," especially young people.
After playing a clip of the exchange, CNN's Brianna Keilar asked Acosta for his thoughts. According to Acosta, McEnany's deflections are nothing new, saying that McEnany is flat-out lying to the American people "like the President did last night at that rally in Ohio" and he's "missing a giant point."
"...and that is that younger Americans, while they may not get sick and die from the coronavirus at the same rate that older Americans do, they can catch the virus and spread it to other people," Acosta said. "So, one of the things we've been dealing with throughout all of this ... is that the President downplays this virus. He diminishes the threat posed by the virus. He holds rallies where people don't wear masks and don't participate in social distancing because of what he says to his own supporters."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Tuesday described the confirmation of the next Supreme Court justice as both an obligation and a choice for the Senate.
At a press briefing, McConnell responded to questions of hypocrisy in the wake of his decision to push forward with confirming a justice in an election year despite the fact that he had not done so under President Barack Obama.
"Early polls show a majority of Americans disagree with your approach," one reporter explained to the Senate leader. "They want you to wait. Does that give you pause?"
"Well, as all of us have pointed out, we have an obligation under the Constitution, should we choose to take advantage of it," McConnell replied, "with a president of the same party as the Senate to advance the nomination."
"We will certainly do that this year," he added.
"But do you understand why many Americans view this as a double standard?" the reporter pressed.
"I can only repeat that we have an obligation under the Constitution, should we choose to take advantage of it to fill the vacancy," McConnell said. "And I assure you, that's very likely to happen."
Fox News host Mark Levin melted down in an all-caps rant about some of the strategies that Democrats are considering after Republicans announced that they won’t comply with their own rule about appointing Supreme Court justices ahead of a presidential election.
Levin's first threat to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is that if Democrats "pack the courts" then Republicans will do the same thing when they're next in power.
"NOTE TO CHUCK SCHUMER: IF YOU SHOULD WIN THE SENATE MAJORITY AND ADD SEATS TO THE SUPREME COURT, THEN WE SHALL ADD FURTHER SEATS WHEN WE RETURN TO THE MAJORITY AND PACK THEM WITH CONSTITUTIONALISTS," said Levin.
— (@)
When President Barack Obama was president, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to allow any votes on any judicial appointees, causing serious problems with trials across the country for years. It's the reason that Trump has been able to pack the courts with his nominees. There was even a case in which McConnell created a judicial vacancy just to get his own former staffer in as a judge.
If Schumer employees his threats, it would take a very long time for Republicans to regain their power. There's a chance the party may not even exist at that point.
"IF YOU ELIMINATE THE FILIBUSTER RULE AS IT APPLIES TO LEGISLATION, THEN WE SHALL USE IT TO IMPOSE OUR WILL LEGISLATIVELY AND REVERSE YOUR LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS WHEREVER POSSIBLE WHEN WE RETURN TO THE MAJORITY," Levin also threatened.
— (@)
This too presumes that Republicans would be able to regain power after Schumer makes good on his promises.
"IF YOU ADD DEMOCRAT SEATS BY ADDING DC AND PUERTO RICO TO THE SENATE, WE SHALL ADD AMERICAN SAMOA AND BREAKUP POTENTIAL OTHER STATES (LIKE TEXAS AND PERHAPS FLORIDA) AND CREATE ADDITIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATE SEATS." Levin closed.
— (@)
Breaking Texas and Florida into pieces to "own the libs" isn't exactly a possibility according to Article IV, Section 3, of the Constitution. They would need Congressional approval to do so.
"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress," it reads.
So places like Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C. and American Samoa could be added to the union. If that's the trade, it seems fair that all of the territories become states, which would still give Democrats the advantage. It could also give the territories the reassurance that the U.S. will come to their aid in disasters.
A petition put forth by the Christian group Faithful America is urging the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast to cancel a planned award of Attorney General Bill Barr, Newsweek reports.
The petition was signed by over 20,000 Christians, calling Barr's record an example of "unjust, corrupt authoritarianism." As of this writing, the petition has garnered almost 21,000 signatures.
"Each year, the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast gives its Christifideles Laici award 'In Honor and Gratitude for Fidelity to the Church, Exemplary Selfless and Steadfast Service in the Lord's Vineyard.' Attorney General William Barr's work—which includes teargassing peaceful protesters in front of the White House, defending the president's lawless corruption and attacks on American elections, and reinstating federal executions—has nothing to do with service to the Lord, and cannot be described as fidelity to the Church," the petition says.
"As fellow Catholics and other Christians, we call on the NCPB to cancel this award for Barr immediately, and avoid any further appearance of endorsing Donald Trump or his Cabinet members so close to an election," it adds.
Chris Wallace, the Fox News anchor who will moderate the first presidential debate in one week from today, has decided on the topics. The Commission on Presidential Debates has released the list, and at least half are literally Trump campaign issues and talking points.
The list includes: The Trump and Biden Records, The Supreme Court, Covid-19, The Economy, Race and Violence in our Cities, The Integrity of the Election.
Americans have said in large numbers the debates are of minimal importance to their decision-making, and polls show most voters are already decided. NBC News senior political editor Mark Murray on Sunday reports a new NBC News/WSJ poll shows "a combined 71% of voters don't see the upcoming debates as being very important to deciding their vote."
Just 18% say they are extremely important, and 44% says they are not at all important.
But allowing Trump to take a victory lap over seating his third Supreme Court justice seems unfair. Voters continue to see Trump as the better of the candidates to manage the economy – despite record unemployment. Race and violence in our cities feeds right in to Trump's lies about "suburban mothers," and supposed fear of Black people. Election integrity is an issue only because Trump has lied about the safety of voting by mail – and worked get the Postal Service to slow down deliveries.
Obvious missing topics, to name a few: climate change, police violence, health care, abortion, unemployment, immigration, Russia, America's standing in the world, the extreme politicization of the federal government, extreme corruption in the federal government, and civil rights.
The debate will be Tuesday, Sept. 29, from 9 PM ET to 10:30 PM ET.
Earlier this year, Vice President Joe Biden and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg were rivals in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary; now, Bloomberg is one of Biden’s most generous donors and is fighting to help him win Florida in the general election — and that includes paying the fines of almost 32,000 African-American and Latino voters who have felony convictions.
Michael Scherer, in the Washington Post, explains that “Bloomberg and his team” have raised $16 million for “a program organized by the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition to pay the fines, fees and restitution costs for former prisoners who are already registered to vote in Florida but barred by law from participating in the election because of those outstanding debts.”
In Florida, many Democrats have argued that prohibiting people from voting because of those fines or fees is a form of voter suppression. But many Florida Republicans have disagreed — including Judge Barbara Lagoa, a far-right Cuban-American Republican who is being considered by President Donald Trump as a Supreme Court nominee following the death of Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18. Lagoa, Scherer notes, “cast a concurring opinion on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the state law requiring payment of debts.”
Bloomberg, who was a Republican during some of his time as mayor of New York City but is now a Democrat, believes that people who were incarcerated in the past shouldn’t be forbidden to vote because of fines — and Bloomberg, Scherer reports, saw that $16 million as a “more cost-effective way of adding votes to the Democratic column than investing money to persuade voters who already have the right to vote, a Bloomberg memo said.”
That memo read, “We have identified a significant vote share that requires a nominal investment. The data shows that in Florida, black voters are a unique universe unlike any other voting bloc, where the Democratic support rate tends to be 90%-95%.”
However, the former NYC mayor was already helping Biden in Florida before raising that $16 million and helping the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition. Bloomberg recently donated at least $100 million to helping Biden in Florida.
In 2018, Florida voters passed a statewide constitutional amendment that allowed convicted felons to vote in elections after they served their time — and the GOP-controlled Florida legislature, in response, passed a law saying that they cannot vote again if they have any unpaid fees or fines associated with their sentences. Democrats attacked the law as a blatant attempt at voter suppression.
Political analyst Maggie Haberman is not sure another Conservative judge on the Supreme Court will be enough for President Donald Trump to take back the Oval Office in November.
Haberman appeared on CNN with host John King where she discussed the possible impact of Sen. Mitt Romney's (R-Utah) decision to consider supporting Trump's Supreme Court nominee. While many people have expressed outrage over Romney's decision, Haberman admitted that she is not surprised by the Republican lawmaker's actions.
"I think people who thought that Mitt Romney was sort of this resistance figure hero... He's a very conservative person. Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on a number of issues over the years but generally speaking, he has held Conservative positions particularly on issues like these," Haberman said, adding, "And that matches the state he represents."
King noted that although a 6-3 majority is typically a Republican's dream, he questioned whether or not that would serve as a benefit for Trump in the short-term due to the demographical make-up of the country. With several swing states still up for grabs in the upcoming November election, Trump's Supreme Court nominee could either help or hurt his chances of winning certain swing states. Haberman agreed that it could, subsequently, lead to some complications for the president.
She highlighted how Trump's decisions are typically motivated by the responses he receives from Conservative Christians and evangelicals. However, by only focusing on his base, Trump runs the risk of losing swing voters that could ultimately determine the outcome of the election in several states.
Haberman's remarks come just one day after Trump's visit to Fayetteville, North Carolina, where he asked the crowd to weigh in on whether or not he should select a male of female nominee for the Supreme Court. The president is leaning more toward selecting a female nominee based on the crowd's reaction.
Trump is expected to announce his Supreme Court nominee in the coming days.
A federal judge in New York on Monday dealt the latest blow to U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s effort to enact major operational changes to the U.S. Postal Service amid the coronavirus pandemic, ordering the post office to reverse the changes in the coming days.
In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero handed a victory to plaintiffs including Mondaire Jones, who won the Democratic primary in New York’s 17th congressional district in July and sued the USPS last month after DeJoy and President Donald Trump “deliberately incapacitated the postal service,” as Jones wrote in USA Today at the time.
Jones, New York state Sen. Alessandra Biaggi, and mail-in voters in states including Wisconsin and Pennsylvania demanded that the court reverse changes such as the cutting of overtime pay for mail carriers and extra trips to ensure all mail is delivered in a timely manner.
Marrero on Monday ordered the USPS to treat all election mail as Priority and First Class mail starting September 25, as mail-in voting has already begun in states including North Carolina and Virginia; to pre-approve all overtime pay for post office workers between October 26 and November 6; and to file weekly reports keeping the public informed of its progress in ensuring all election-related mail can be delivered in time for votes to be tallied on November 3.
“The right to vote is too vital a value in our democracy to be left in a state of suspense in the minds of voters weeks before a presidential election,” Marrero wrote in his ruling.
— (@)
Supporters of Jones, a progressive who is expected to win the general election on November 3, applauded his leadership in fighting DeJoy and Trump’s assault on the postal service.
— (@)
— (@)
“I’m not waiting until January to notch big victories,” Jones wrote in a Tuesday email to supporters of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “Now more than ever, our democracy is on the line, our rights are on the line, and the fate of this nation is on the line. I’m grateful to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for affirming our right to a free and fair election in today’s win for all Americans.”
DeJoy’s cuts of overtime pay, removal of mail boxes and mail sorting machines, and other changes to the post office in recent months have raised alarm among voting rights advocates that voters in the general election will be disenfranchised by mail delivery delays. Most Americans will be able to vote by mail this year due to the coronavirus pandemic that has now killed more than 200,000 Americans amid Trump’s misinformation and mismanagement of the crisis.
Despite having voted by mail himself—and numerous studies debunking his claims—the president has repeatedly said the system will allow for so-called “voter fraud.” Marrero’s decision follows a ruling in Washington state last week, in which another federal judge blocked DeJoy’s operational changes and issued a nationwide injunction to reverse them, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling extending the state’s mail-in ballot deadline.
“With more Americans voting by mail this fall than ever before, we won’t have a free and fair election without the USPS. Period,” said Jones. “That’s why I filed this lawsuit, and it’s why I’m grateful for the Court’s decision to ensure the integrity of our elections.”
Former Trump National Security Council staffer Fiona Hill told CNN's Jim Sciutto on Tuesday that the United States under President Donald Trump evokes "pity" from people around the world instead of respect.
In talking about Russia's efforts to sow division in the United States ahead of the 2020 presidential election, Hill told Sciutto that America's foreign adversaries don't have to do much to create fear and mistrust in America right now.
"So I have to say very bluntly to everybody who's watching and listening to this, we are increasingly an object of pity, including by our allies," she said. "They're shocked by how we eat ourselves alive with our divisions. We are creating this -- it is not the Russians or the Chinese!"
Hill's remarks also came on a day when the United States' COVID-19 death toll surpassed 200,000 people, which is the largest death toll of any country in the world.
