Connect with us

U.S.

White House Causes Confusion After Changing Status of Trump Briefings

Published

on

  • After Trump faced backlash Thursday for suggesting researchers test injecting disinfectants as a coronavirus treatment, reports indicated that he might step back from press briefings. 
  • His briefing Friday was short and did not include questioning from reporters. Saturday’s briefing was canceled completely, and Trump tweeted that the events are “not worth the time & effort.”
  • Monday’s press briefing was initially canceled but put back on the calendar after White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted that he had announcements to make about testing and other subjects.
  • People close to Trump, however, have told numerous reporters that they are eager for the president to step back as they fear his outbursts at briefings could cost him and other Republicans re-election in November.

Scheduling Flip Flops

The White House rescheduled a previously canceled coronavirus press briefing Monday, leaving the future of President Donald Trump’s daily public addresses even more unclear.

Axios reported Monday morning that the White House had canceled the press briefing for the day. 

“The Coronavirus Task Force — and the doctors who’ve become household names, Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci — ‘will continue but take a back seat to the forward-looking, ‘what’s next’ message’ focused on the economy,” Axios‘ report said.

But not long after, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany gave an update, saying that the briefing would go on so the president could give additional testing guidance and make other announcements.

Trump’s daily press briefings were put in jeopardy on Thursday after the president made false and dangerous claims that injections of disinfectant should be looked into as a treatment for the coronavirus.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

He tried to walk the claims back by saying he was being sarcastic, but many agree there was no indication the president was being sarcastic at the time.

His following briefing on Friday was a quick 25 minutes and left out additional questioning from reporters. When the White House canceled Saturday’s briefing Trump suggested that the procedure is “not worth the time & effort” and accused the media of having a bias against him. This marked the first Saturday since Easter weekend without a briefing.

As for the rest of the week, McEnany told Fox News that the daily briefings would continue, but that they “may have a different look.” 

Reasons Behind a Potential Scaling Back

Trump advisors have reportedly been eager to get Trump out of the press briefings for a long time, fearing that his outbursts could have a detrimental effect on his image heading into 2020. Trump has resisted this, citing high ratings. Still, only one third of Americans find the briefings useful, and only 47% have confidence in him during this pandemic, while nearly 70% trust their governors. 

According to Axios, his comments Thursday could have led to a turning point for Trump. 

“A source said it finally seems to have dawned on Trump, after this incident, that these briefings aren’t helping him,” their report said. 

The impacts his pandemic response could have on 2020 are substantial. Right now, it is a top concern for other Republicans. A New York Times report indicates that members of his party are worried that Trump’s overexposure and his public comments during this pandemic could lead to a big loss for them.

In nearly every key state, Biden is polling ahead. More than the precedency is also at stake for the GOP. Right now, Senators in competitive states are trailing behind their Democratic opponents. 

The Times says that this is “in part because their fate is linked to Mr. Trump’s job performance.”

See what others are saying: (Axios) (New York Times) (Politico)

U.S.

SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Police in Two Qualified Immunity Cases

Published

on

The move further solidifies the contentious legal doctrine that protects officers who commit alleged constitutional violations.


SCOTUS Hears Qualified Immunity Cases 

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of police in two separate cases involving qualified immunity, the controversial legal doctrine that shields officers accused of violating constitutional rights from lawsuits.

The topic has become a major flashpoint in debates over police reform and curbing police violence since the protests against racial injustice and police brutality in the summer of 2020.

On one side, supporters of qualified immunity claim it is necessary to ensure that police can do their jobs without worrying about frivolous lawsuits. 

However, opponents argue that judicial interpretations of the doctrine over time have given police incredibly broad legal immunity for misconduct and use of excessive force. Under a previous Supreme Court ruling, in order for officers to be held liable, plaintiffs have to show that they violated rights “clearly established” by a previous ruling.

In other words, officers cannot be held liable unless there is another case that involves almost identical circumstances.

As a result, many argue the doctrine creates a Catch-22: Officers are shielded from liability because there is no past precedent, but the reason there is no past precedent is because officers are shielded from liability in the first place.

An Ongoing Debate

Critics argue that the two cases the Supreme Court saw Monday illustrate that double bind, as both involved accusations of excessive force commonly levied against police.

In one case, officers used non-lethal bean bag rounds against a suspect and knelt on his back to subdue him. In the other, police shot and killed a suspect after he threatened them with a hammer.

The justices overturned both lower-court rulings without ordering full briefing and argument because of the lack of precedent. The court issued the decisions in unsigned orders with no dissent, signaling they did not even see the cases as close calls. 

Advocates for qualified immunity claim the decisions signal that the current Supreme Court is not open to changing qualified immunity, and the most likely path for opponents of the doctrine is legislation.

While Democrats in Congress have made numerous efforts to limit qualified immunity, including most recently in the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act passed by the House earlier this year, all those attempts have been blocked by Republicans.

At the state level, dozens of bills have been killed after heavy lobbying from police unions. As a result, it remains unclear what path proponents for reform have at this juncture.

See what others are saying: (NPR) (The New York Times) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Florida School Says Students Vaccinated Against COVID-19 Must Stay Home for 30 Days

Published

on

The school falsely claimed that people who have just been vaccinated risk “shedding” the coronavirus and could infect others.


Centner Academy Vaccination Policy

A private school in Florida is now requiring all students who get vaccinated against COVID-19 to quarantine for 30 days before returning to class.

According to the local Miami outlet WSVN, Centner Academy wrote a letter to parents last week describing COVID vaccines as “experimental” and citing anti-vaccine misinformation.

“If you are considering the vaccine for your Centner Academy student(s), we ask that you hold off until the Summer when there will be time for the potential transmission or shedding onto others to decrease,” the letter reportedly stated.

“Because of the potential impact on other students and our school community, vaccinated students will need to stay at home for 30 days post-vaccination for each dose and booster they receive and may return to school after 30 days as long as the student is healthy and symptom-free.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has debunked the false claim that those newly vaccinated against COVID-19 can “shed” the virus.

According to the agency’s COVID myths page, vaccine shedding “can only occur when a vaccine contains a weakened version of the virus,” but “none of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines in the United States contain the live virus that causes COVID-19. This means that a COVID-19 vaccine cannot make you sick with COVID-19.”

In fact, early research has suggested that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus than unvaccinated people.

Beyond that, unvaccinated people are more likely to spread COVID in general because they are much more likely to get the virus than vaccinated people. According to recently published CDC data, as of August, unvaccinated people were six times more likely to get COVID than vaccinated people and 11 times more likely to die from the virus.

Centner Academy Continues Spread of Misinformation

In a statement to The Washington Post Monday, Centner Academy co-founder David Centner doubled down on the school’s new policy, which he described as a “precautionary measure” based on “numerous anecdotal cases that have been in circulation.”

“The school is not opining as to whether unexplained phenomena have a basis in fact, however we prefer to err on the side of caution when making decisions that impact the health of the school community,” he added.

The new rule echoes similar efforts Centner Academy has made that run counter to public health guidance and scientific knowledge.

In April, the school made headlines when its leadership told vaccinated school employees that they were not allowed to be in contact with any students “until more information is known” and encouraged employees to wait until summer to get the jab.

According to The New York Times, the following week, a math and science teacher allegedly told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.

The outlet also reported that the school’s other co-founder, Leila Centner, discouraged masking, but when state health officials came for routine inspections, teachers said they were directed in a WhatsApp group to put masks on.

See what others are saying: (WSVN) (The Washington Post) (Business Insider)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Katie Couric Says She Edited Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quote About Athletes Kneeling During National Anthem

Published

on

Couric said she omitted part of a 2016 interview in order to “protect” the justice.


Kate Couric Edited Quote From Justice Ginsburg

In her upcoming book, journalist Katie Couric admitted to editing a quote from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2016 in order to “protect” Ginsberg from potential criticism. 

Couric interviewed the late justice for an article in Yahoo News. During their discussion, she asked Ginsburg about her thoughts on athletes like Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem to protest racial inequality.

“I think it’s really dumb of them,” Ginsburg is quoted saying in the piece. “Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it’s dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”

According to The Daily Mail and The New York Post, which obtained advance copies of Couric’s book “Going There,” there was more to Ginsburg’s response. Couric wrote that she omitted a portion where Ginsburg said the form of protest showed a “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life…Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from.

Couric Says She Lost Sleep Making Choice

“As they became older they realize that this was youthful folly,” Ginsberg reportedly continued. “And that’s why education is important.

According to The Daily Mail, Couric wrote that the Supreme Court’s head of public affairs sent an email asking to remove comments about kneeling because Ginsburg had misspoken. Couric reportedly added that she felt a need to “protect” the justice, thinking she may not have understood the question. Couric reached out to her friend, New York Times reporter David Brooks, regarding the matter and he allegedly likewise believed she may have been confused by the subject. 

Couric also wrote that she was a “big RBG fan” and felt her comments were “unworthy of a crusader for equality.” Because she knew the remarks could land Ginsburg in hot water, she said she “lost a lot of sleep” and felt “conflicted” about whether or not to edit them out. 

Couric was trending on Twitter Wednesday and Thursday as people questioned the ethics behind her choice to ultimately cut part of the quote. Some thought the move showed a lack of journalistic integrity while others thought revealing the story now harmed Ginsburg’s legacy.

See what others are saying: (New York Post) (The Daily Mail) (Insider)

Continue Reading