PHILADELPHIA — Sen. Pat Toomey said Tuesday that it’s “completely unacceptable” for President Donald Trump to pressure state lawmakers to overturn Pennsylvania’s election result, a rare rebuke from a Republican elected official as Trump continues his effort to subvert the will of the voters.
“It’s completely unacceptable and it’s not going to work and the president should give up trying to get legislatures to overturn the results of the elections in their respective states,” Toomey, Pennsylvania’s most prominent elected Republican, said in a telephone interview. His comments came a day after it emerged that Trump called the Republican state House speaker to seek help in undoing the outcome.
Toomey, one of fewer than 30 congressional Republicans to openly acknowledge the election results, said he spoke with President-elect Joe Biden by phone late last week, congratulated him on his victory, and discussed some of the few areas where they might be able to cooperate, such as on international trade.
“We had a very pleasant conversation,” Toomey said.
Toomey slammed Trump’s attempts to change the outcome of an election he lost a day after the Washington Post reported that Trump called the Republican speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Bryan Cutler, twice to seek help in doing so. Cutler told Trump the state legislature has no power to overturn Pennsylvania’s chosen slate of electors, the Post reported, citing a Cutler spokesman. But Cutler was among several dozen GOP state lawmakers who wrote to Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation urging them to object to the state’s electoral slate when Congress formally accepts the results in early January.
Toomey had previously rejected that idea as well. He said he believes the moves by Trump and some Republicans could damage public faith in elections, pointing out that numerous judges and Trump’s own attorney general, Bill Barr, have found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
But Toomey also blamed Democrats and liberals for some of their actions.
“It’s also important to point out that this isn’t the only thing that has undermined people’s confidence in our government and our electoral system,” Toomey said. “A lot of Republicans across the commonwealth and across the country are sympathetic to some of the allegations being made by the president because they’ve witnessed the way he’s been treated for the last four years by the left and the press.”
He pointed to calls to impeach Trump before he was sworn in, “an attempt to impeach him over a phone call” and the so-called Steele dossier, a document of unsubstantiated rumors about Trump and Russia compiled by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. Some of the information was later used to in FBI applications to wiretap a Trump campaign advisor.
“The accumulation of these outrageous attacks leads people to wonder well, what wouldn’t they do?” Toomey said.
(The House impeached Trump for his efforts to leverage his office, and American security interests, to produce political dirt on Biden. Toomey has called Trump’s request to Ukraine’s president in the matter “inappropriate” but said it wasn’t enough to throw out a duly elected president, and the Senate acquitted him.)
Trump on Tuesday continued his baseless allegations, tweeting his thanks to Cutler and “all others in Pennsylvania and elsewhere who fully understand what went on in the 2020 Election. It’s called total corruption!”
There is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud in Pennsylvania’s presidential election. Trump’s campaign itself hasn’t presented any such evidence in its numerous legal challenges contesting the result, nor has it cited in legal filings even a single specific allegation of a vote deliberately cast illegally. Rather, its legal efforts have been aimed at disqualifying votes that all evidence shows were legitimately cast under rules they disagree with. Every major case brought by the campaign has been rejected by judges, including some appointed by Trump.
Toomey, who is not seeking reelection in 2022, noted that the election result is clear and the president’s allegations have not been backed up in court.
“In my view that doesn’t change the obligation of the president’s campaign to acknowledge that they have not been able to demonstrate that there’s been fraud, not on any significant scale,” Toomey said. “That has been determined by election officials, that has been determined by federal judges, that’s been determined by appellate court judges. That’s the opinion of the attorney general who is a Donald Trump appointee. So in my view the outcome of the election is clear and that is that Joe Biden won the election. But I understand why people are upset and why they are inclined to listen to these allegations that have not been substantiated.”
He added, “it’s all very very unhelpful to people’s confidence in our government.”
Pennsylvania officials have certified election results showing Biden won the state by 81,000 votes, nearly double Trump’s margin in 2016.
TribLIVE’s Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.
Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley offers his legal insight on ‘Special Report’
President Trump and his Republican allies are “running out of runway” after the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a Pennsylvania law expanding mail-in voting, George Washington University Law Professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley said Tuesday.
“We have talked in the past about how the president was running out of runway,” Turley told “Special Report”. “And at this point, to really make a difference, he would have to land a jumbo jet on a postage stamp. I mean, he does not have a lot of runway left. This was considered his strongest case for the Supreme Court and the court system has proven that it is independent in reviewing these claims.”
The high court, which includes three justices nominated by Trump, left intact a decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to toss a lawsuit from Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa. that contested the 2019 law, landing a “big blow” to the president and his legal team, Turley explained.
The GOP appeal to the high court was referred to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who then referred it to the full court.
The newest justice, Amy Coney Barrett participated in the vote, despite Democrats repeatedly spreading “these conspiracy theories that she was put on the court to kill the ACA [ObamaCare] or steal the election” throughout her confirmation process, Turley observed.
Shifting to U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s dismissal of the criminal case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn earlier Tuesday, Turley said he found it “really grossly inappropriate for him [Sullivan] to essentially declare a verdict of a person who wasn’t even sentenced.
“That’s what this was. And, you know, judges usually don’t even address the guilt of a defendant until sentencing,” he added. “They certainly avoid that when you are having a dismissal of a case, they don’t talk about guilt or innocence.”
Trump pardoned Flynn in late November after Sullivan refused to automatically grant the Justice Department‘s motion to dismiss Flynn’s case earlier this year.
Sullivan’s handling of the Flynn case was “gratuitous,” Turley said, “and it was wrong for the court to do it.”
President Donald Trump told reporters that he had not invited representatives from President-elect Joe Biden‘s transition team to a Tuesday coronavirus vaccine summit because Trump won the election in some battleground states.
Trump has made baseless claims that he won a second term as president and accused Democrats of “rigging” the election in Biden’s favor via widespread fraud. Most legal efforts to overturn the results of the election have been unsuccessful. Distributing the COVID-19 vaccines is expected to begin later in December, with a majority of Americans not being able to obtain the vaccine until 2021.
When asked by a reporter why members of the incoming administration were not invited to the Tuesday event, Trump implied that the next president had not yet been chosen.
“Well, we’re going to have to see who the next administration is because we won in those swing states,” Trump said.
“And hopefully the next administration will be the Trump administration because you can’t steal hundreds of thousands of votes,” Trump continued. “You can’t have fraud and deception and all of the things that they did and then slightly win a swing state. And you just have to look at the numbers, look at what’s been on tape, look at all the corruption and we’ll see. You can’t win an election like that.”
Trump has called on state legislators and judges to assist him in rejecting election results.
“Let’s see if they have the courage to do what everybody in this country knows is right,” Trump said.
Newsweek reached out to Biden’s transition team for comment.
President Donald Trump told reporters that he had won the election in some swing states during a Tuesday event at the White House. Tasos Katopodis/Getty
According to the Associated Press, Trump received 232 electoral votes in the 2020 presidential race. Biden garnered 306 electoral votes. A candidate must receive 270 votes in the Electoral College to win the election. After voting in the Electoral College is complete, the votes are counted in January by the U.S. Congress.
Trump has claimed that ballots in some states were counted incorrectly. He has also alleged that certain voting machines were programmed to “flip” votes meant for him to Biden’s column. So far, none of Trump’s allegations have been proven in a court of law.
Trump’s legal team has attempted to have the certified election results in some states canceled out. An attempt in Pennsylvania spearheaded by Republican Representative Mike Kelly was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Despite a growing list of legal losses, attorneys for Trump’s re-election campaign have said they would continue to file litigation. According to a statement released Tuesday by Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign senior adviser Jenna Ellis, they have until Inauguration Day to continue fighting to ensure a second term for Trump.
“Despite the media trying desperately to proclaim that the fight is over,” the joint statement read, “we will continue to champion election integrity until every legal vote is counted and accurately.”
For Mr. Biden and his transition team, the selection of key jobs has become a constantly shifting puzzle as they search for candidates who are qualified, get along with the president-elect, and help create the ethnic and gender mosaic that would be a striking contrast with President Trump’s administration.
Allies of Ms. Fudge, including Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina and one of Mr. Biden’s most prominent Black supporters during the 2020 campaign, had urged the president-elect to put Ms. Fudge at the Agriculture Department, where she had hoped to shift the agency’s focus away from farming and toward hunger, including in urban areas.
Instead, Mr. Biden settled on Mr. Vilsack, who is white and from an important rural farming state.
But the decision to instead put Ms. Fudge at HUD, which is viewed by some advocacy groups as a more traditional place for a Black secretary, has the potential to disappoint those pushing for her, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus, of which she is a former chairwoman. The current housing secretary, Ben Carson, is Black.
Just hours after Mr. Biden made official his historic choice of General Austin for defense secretary, a group of Black civil rights activists urged Mr. Biden to nominate a Black attorney general and to make civil rights a higher priority.
“He said if he won, he would do something about criminal justice, police reform and specifically mass incarceration,” the Rev. Al Sharpton, the civil rights leader and talk show host, said in an interview on Tuesday before a meeting with Mr. Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. “He flew to Houston to meet before I did the eulogy for George Floyd. He made specific commitments. I’m saying, promises made, let’s see if promises are kept.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration dove back into Capitol Hill’s confusing COVID-19 negotiations on Tuesday, offering a $916 billion package to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would send a $600 direct payment to most Americans.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin made the offer to Pelosi late Tuesday afternoon, he said in a statement. He offered few details, though House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy said it proposes the $600 direct payment for individuals and $1,200 for couples, which is half the payment delivered by the March pandemic relief bill.
Mnuchin reached out to Pelosi after a call with top congressional GOP leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who remains at odds with Democratic leaders over COVID-19 relief.
McConnell had earlier proposed shelving a top Democratic priority — aid to state and local governments — in exchange for dropping his own pet provision, a shield against lawsuits for COVID-related negligence. Democrats angrily rejected the idea, saying McConnell was undermining the efforts of a bipartisan group of Senate negotiators and reneging on earlier statements that state and local aid would likely have to be an element of a COVID-19 relief agreement given Democratic control of the House.
Top Republicans dislike the direct payments, saying they are costly and send too much aid to people who do not need it. Democrats generally embrace the idea.
“Right now we’re targeting struggling families, failing businesses, health care workers and we don’t have a stimulus check to every single person, regardless of need,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is a leader of a bipartisan group pressing for a $908 billion pact.
The $916 billion Mnuchin offer, the separate ongoing talks among key rank-and-file senators, and the shifting demands by the White House all add up to muddled, confusing prospects for a long-delayed COVID-19 aid package. The pressure to deliver is intense — all sides say failure isn’t an option.
The group of moderates, led by Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Collins are seeking to rally lawmakers in both parties behind the $908 billion framework. It is more generous than a GOP plan that’s been filibustered twice already but far smaller than a wish list assembled by House Democrats.
McConnell said Congress will not adjourn without providing the long-overdue COVID-19 relief. He had previously said he would not put any pandemic relief bill on the floor that does not include the liability shield, which is being sought by businesses, universities, nonprofits, and others that are reopening during the pandemic.
“Leaving here without a COVID relief package cannot happen,” McConnell said. “Why don’t we set aside the two obviously most contentious issues. We know we’re going to be confronted with another request after the first of the year. We’ll live to fight those another day.”
Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer immediately rejected the entreaty, saying the state and local relief is sought by many Republicans, too, including some conservatives like Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Mitt Romney of Utah. Pelosi blasted McConnell’s offer as an attempt to undercut the bipartisan group whose framework she supports as a foundation for the negotiations.
Pelosi initially demanded more than $900 billion for state and local governments this spring, but the fiscal situation in the states hasn’t been as bad as feared and Democratic leaders could be willing to accept a $160 billion proposal by the moderate group.
Already, Capitol Hill leaders are moving a government shutdown deadline to the end of next week, but progress is slow and key decisions are yet to be made. The House has scheduled a vote on a one-week temporary government funding bill for Wednesday. Without the measure, the government would shut down this weekend.
Separately, Pelosi and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., spoke by phone on Monday to try to kick start talks on a separate $1.4 trillion government-wide spending bill. That measure is held up over issues like protections for the sage grouse, the Census and accounting maneuvers being employed by lawmakers to squeeze $12 billion more into the legislation.
McConnell initially proposed a sweeping five-year liability shield, retroactive to December 2019, to protect companies and organizations from COVID-19-related lawsuits. Democrats, along with their allies in labor and civil rights groups, roundly dismissed that approach as a danger to workers. And there hasn’t been a wave of lawsuits.
“Contrary to the majority leader’s dire predictions, there has been no flood of COVID lawsuits. In fact, quite the opposite,” said Schumer, D-N.Y. “Far from the pandemic of lawsuits, there’s barely been a trickle.”
“I know there’s considerable public support for it, but right now we’re targeting struggling families, failing businesses, health-care workers, and we don’t have a stimulus check to every single person, regardless of need,” Collins told reporters.
Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees Congressman Adam Smith (Center L), D-Wash., and Senator James Inhofe (C-R), R-Okla., participate in a ceremonial gavel passing while Senator Jack Reed (R), D-RI., and Congressman Mac Thornberry (L), R-Texas, look on at the US Capitol last month
BONNIE CASH/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
BONNIE CASH/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
The House approved the defense bill by an overwhelming majority, despite a potential presidential veto threatening to derail the annual legislation’s enactment for the first time in 60 years.
House lawmakers passed the National Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 335 to 78. Backers had hoped the plan would win by a supermajority in the House support to send a message to President Trump to not veto the plan as he has repeatedly threatened.
It also signals the House could have the votes to override the move should Trump follow through with his veto threats, if lawmakers don’t change their positions. Sponsors of the bill had urged a strong bipartisan vote under the cloud of Trump’s threats, and as members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus fell in line with his demands.
“If the six-decade legacy of having this bill signed… into law ends with us after 59 years, then I’m afraid that process of having hundreds of members contribute would end as well,” said Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry, the House Armed Services committee’s top ranking Republican, for whom this year’s legislation is named.
The Texas Republican, who is retiring, added on the floor as some of his GOP colleagues announced they would not get cross wise with the president, “A very strong vote will help prevent that. The stronger the vote, the smoother the process from here on out.” He added, “a strong vote will show the troops that we support them. A strong vote will show adversaries that we can stand together to support this nation. And that is what this bill is really all about.”
The legislation now heads to the Senate, where it will face its final test before reaching Trump’s desk. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters he would vote for it.
The massive annual bill sets policy for the Pentagon and military service members — one that, because of its size and importance, passes with large bipartisan support nearly every year. It includes everything from plans on boosting troop levels and equipment to pay increases.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. lauded several provisions in the bill, from the renaming of bases carrying Confederate names to directing new hazard pay for military servicemembers to new benefits for Vietnam War-era veterans exposed to Agent Orange.
The measure also addresses military housing improvements and $8.4 billion in construction projects.
“And now the President has threatened to veto this legislation. I hope not. I hope not,” Pelosi said on the floor before the vote. “This bipartisan policy bill has been signed into law for 59 consecutive years. Let us urge the President to show respect for the work of the bicameral, bipartisan Congress and for the sacrifice of our military.”
I hope House Republicans will vote against the very weak National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which I will VETO. Must include a termination of Section 230 (for National Security purposes), preserve our National Monuments, & allow for 5G & troop reductions in foreign lands!
A week ago, the president threatened to veto the policy bill if it didn’t include a last-minute provision to end a legal protection for social media companies. But a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including key Republicans, proceeded with the legislation even though it didn’t have the provision Trump demanded.
Trump reiterated his demands on Tuesday morning.
“I hope House Republicans will vote against the very weak National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which I will VETO,” Trump tweeted.
Trump had wanted lawmakers to repeal Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act over his ongoing feud with social media companies. Section 230 provides the legal protection for technology companies over content from third parties and users.
But lead Republicans, including Senate Majority Whip John Thune of South Dakota and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., joined Democrats in saying it wasn’t relevant to the bill.
“There is no choice here where you can do both, so please make the right choice,” Washington State Democratic Rep. Adam Smith, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, pleaded on the House floor. “Please recognize all of the incredibly important bicameral, bi-policy provisions that are contained in this bill. This is one thing, this is one thing, in a very tumultuous time that we ought to be able to agree on.”
Earlier this year, when initial versions of the legislation was passed in both chambers, it drew broad support. It passed the House by a vote of 295 to 125, while the Senate approved it by 86 to 14.
Despite these efforts, a bloc of members of the House Freedom Caucus urged a vote against the measure, a reversal for Republicans traditionally on board for the annual defense legislation.
Arizona GOP Rep. Andy Biggs, chair of the group, said while they have traditionally supported the defense bill in the past, Trump’s concerns are among several for the group now.
“This particular NDAA bill, however, is filled with flaws and problems. And the president has indicated he would veto this bill and there are reasons why,” Biggs told reporters.
But despite Tuesday’s passage, there’s no guarantee Congress can override the move if there is a veto. For example, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters while he would vote for the bill on Tuesday, he won’t vote to override a Trump veto later.
“I don’t believe Republicans, in our work with the president always, that you vote to override a veto,” McCarthy said.
The move pits top House Republican leaders on opposing sides of the debate. On Monday, Wyoming GOP Rep. Liz Cheney told a Capitol Hill pool reporter that the House should fend off the veto attempt.
“We’ve got to pass the NDAA and the president should not veto it,” said Cheney, who is the House Republican Conference Chair and a member of the Armed Services Committee. “And we should override.”
The fight over a liability shield for tech companies wasn’t Trump’s first veto threat of the bill. In June, Trump said he would reject the bill if it moved to rename military installations named for figures from the Confederacy. Trump had targeted Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who spearheaded the effort.
The final version of the legislation retains a provision authored Warren to create a commission to trigger such a plan.
“There’s no room for celebrating the violent bigotry of men of the Confederacy in any place of honor across our country, whether in the hallowed halls of the United States Capitol or on our military bases,” Pelosi said. “Changing the hateful names of these bases is supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people, by our active duty service men and women and by top military leaders.”
A high-level Inauguration planning meeting on Capitol Hill ended in acrimony Tuesday after House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer offered up a motion that the small committee – known as the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC) — affirm that it is preparing for the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden. Although all three Democrats on the committee voted in favor of the motion, their Republican counterparts voted against it, resulting in a deadlock.
“The extent to which Republicans are refusing to accept the outcome of the election and recognize Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as our next President and Vice President is astounding,” Hoyer said in a statement after the meeting. “Their continued deference to President Trump’s post-election temper tantrums threatens our democracy and undermines faith in our system of elections.”
Senator Amy Klobuchar, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Hoyer voted in favor of the motion. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Senate Rules Committee Chairman Roy Blunt voted no.
In a statement, Blunt said that the committee was not responsible for determining who will be inaugurated.
“It is not the job of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies to get ahead of the electoral process and decide who we are inaugurating. The JCCIC is facing the challenge of planning safe Inaugural Ceremonies during a global pandemic. I would hope that, going forward, the members of the JCCIC would adhere to the committee’s long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation and focus on the task at hand,” Blunt said.
A Republican aide working with the JCCIC told CBS News that traditionally, most of the planning done by the committee is done before the election without knowing who will be ultimately inaugurated.
“The inaugural ceremonies are planned by the JCCIC—they are a congressional event. Ultimately, decisions are made by the six JCCIC members,” the aide said. “Most of the planning that occurs for inaugurals is done before the election takes place. For example, during the organizational meeting on June 30, 2020, the JCCIC voted to conduct the swearing in ceremonies on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol.”
While this is technically true, the Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC) formed by Mr. Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris is generally deeply involved in these JCCIC decisions. Despite the vote on June 30 to conduct the swearing in ceremonies on the West Front, Mr. Biden has made it clear that he does not want to do anything that might cause people to gather in an unsafe manner.
In a statement, Biden’s PIC communications director, Pili Tobar, said that the PIC would work closely with the JCCIC in the coming weeks.
“President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris will be sworn-in as the next President and Vice President of the United States on January 20, 2021. We look forward to continuing to work closely with the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and plan a safe inauguration that engages Americans across the country,” Tobar said.
Mr. Trump has refused to concede, and most Republican members are remaining silent in the face of his attempts to overturn the results of the election. Although Mr. Trump’s campaign has launched lawsuits in several states challenging the results, the vast majority of them have been unsuccessful. The president has also tried to personally intervene in the election certification processes in Michigan, Georgia and Pennsylvania, which all voted for Biden.
The ruling came hours before the so-called “safe harbor” cutoff, a federal deadline by which states must resolve election-related disputes in state courts to guarantee Congress will count their electors’ votes.
Ward brought the election contest under a state law that allows voters to dispute certified results if they suspect misconduct, illegal votes or an inaccurate count. But, over a day and a half of testimony and oral arguments, her team failed to prove anything beyond a handful of garden variety mistakes, Superior Court Judge Randall Warner said.
In an order issued Tuesday after Ward appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, Chief Justice Robert Brutinel agreed.
The court agreed Ward’s challenge had failed to “present any evidence of ‘misconduct,’ ‘illegal votes’ or that the Biden Electors ‘did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for office,'” he wrote — “let alone establish any degree of fraud or a sufficient error rate that would undermine the certainty of the election results.”
“Elections will not be held invalid for mere irregularities unless it can be shown that the result has been affected by such irregularity,” he wrote. “The validity of an election is not voided by honest mistakes or omissions unless they affect the result, or at least render it uncertain.
Noting the decision was unanimous, he concluded: “It is ordered affirming the trial court decision and confirming the election of the Biden Electors.” Those 11 electors are scheduled to cast their presidential votes Monday.
Ward did not immediately comment on the ruling. In a video posted to her Twitter page Tuesday morning, she claimed the expedited nature of the case had jeopardized her right to due process.
“Whenever you have 3.3 million ballots-plus to look at, it certainly is a problem … if you are only given two days to present your case,” she said, referring to the Superior Court proceedings.
The high court dismissed that idea, with Brutinel writing that the trial judge’s timeline was appropriate given the circumstances.
It also rejected the Secretary of State’s Office request to have the Arizona GOP cover its legal fees without elaborating.
Attorneys for state call federal suit ‘dystopian fiction’
While state courts resolved election contests by Tuesday evening, another challenge is pending in federal court.
That lawsuit, filed with the assistance of attorney and Trump advocate Sidney Powell, names Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs and Gov. Doug Ducey as defendants.
Alleging “massive election fraud” involving Dominion voting machines,the plaintiffs — mostly would-be Trump electors — seek to have the state’s election results “decertified” and election equipment seized.
U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa heard preliminary arguments in the case Tuesday morning, after attorneys for state and county officials filed motions asking her to toss out the lawsuit.
Hobbs lawyer Justin Nelson called the suit “dystopian fiction” in his filing, saying it was the “latest in a series of baseless attacks on the results of the 2020 election” and attacking the credibility of the plaintiffs’ proposed witnesses.
“Plaintiffs seek unprecedented relief: overturning a presidential election and disenfranchising nearly 3.4 million Arizona voters,” he wrote. “They do so based on anonymous (affidavits), facially unqualified so-called experts, and an implausible claimed conspiracy.”
He also argued they lacked standing to file the claim in the first place, as state courts are the forum for election contests and they offered only “generalized” grievances.
Maricopa County lawyer Thomas Liddy similarly deemed the suit “woefully deficient” in his motion and noted Ward already had an election contest pending on appeal. And Brett Johnson, a private attorney hired by Ducey, said the governor had completed his duties when he certified the election and the lawsuit was moot.
Humetewa asked Julia Haller, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, to addressthose and other arguments during Tuesday’s hearing. She noted that courts in other states had recently rejected almost identical attempts decertify results after concluding no federal law had been violated.
“The election results were already certified. The governor has already transmitted the same to the United States archivist,” Humetewa said. What makes this (case) different?”
Haller acknowledged that there was “some overlap” with other election cases but said this lawsuit focused on Ducey and Hobbs, rather than Biden electors or county officials.
“We are seeking … to invalidate the election based on the governor’s certification, and the secretary of state’s role in that process,” she said. “That is very different from the contest statute.”
Nelson pushed back, arguing on behalf of defendants that Arizona has “a detailed and strict procedure for challenging election results” in state court, and “plaintiffs are trying to use this court as an end run around the system.”
He noted that Ducey and Hobbs belong to different political parties, yet “they stand united in defending a free and fair election, and they would be here defending the outcome of this election, regardless of who had prevailed.”
“This court should grant the motion (to dismiss) and not allow such a frivolous lawsuit to continue in plaintiffs’ attempt to undermine the will of the Arizona people,” Nelson said.
Humetewa said she would issue a ruling by Wednesday afternoon.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) — whose endorsement was pivotal in helping Biden secure the nomination — has pushed aggressively for Fudge to be named to the Cabinet and said earlier Tuesday she would land a top job. The Cleveland congresswoman also has the support of Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, which will handle her nomination.
A spokesperson for Fudge did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Biden transition declined to comment.
Fudge lamented just last month in an interview with POLITICO that Black policymakers have traditionally been relegated to just a handful of Cabinet positions — including HUD secretary.
“As this country becomes more and more diverse, we’re going to have to stop looking at only certain agencies as those that people like me fit in,” she said. “You know, it’s always ‘we want to put the Black person in Labor or HUD.’”
HUD will play a key role in the incoming administration’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which has caused millions of people to fall behind on rent and mortgage payments.
The next HUD secretary will take over amid an acute housing crisis, as millions of tenants walloped by the pandemic-driven economic crisis face eviction and massive back-rent bills. The Biden administration is expected to push for Congress to pass a relief package dedicating billions of dollars to rent relief, and HUD will likely seek additional funding to address homelessness.
Fair housing will also be a priority. The Biden transition lists “racial equity” as a Day One priority, alongside Covid-19, the economic crisis and climate change. The gap in homeownership rates between white and Black Americans has never been wider, a key driver of the persistent racial wealth gap.
Among the new secretary’s first tasks will be restoring the 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, which outgoing HUD Secretary Ben Carson revoked this summer. The original rule — which the Obama administration introduced as a way to beef up enforcement of the landmark Fair Housing Act of 1968 — would have required local governments to track patterns of segregation with a checklist of 92 questions in order to gain access to federal housing funds.
A federal judge in October issued a preliminary injunction to stop HUD from implementing the new rule, which would have required plaintiffs to meet a higher threshold to prove unintentional discrimination, known as disparate impact, and given defendants more leeway to rebut the claims.
Five percent of all produced COVID-19 vaccine will be held back for emergencies and states will have the option of trading vials within the government’s ordering system to get the kind they want.
Those are just a few of the details we’re learning about how the vaccine will move around the nation as distribution comes closer, potentially as early as Friday or Saturday.
Paul Ostrowski, who leads supply, production and distribution for the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed, walked USA TODAY through the process.
Here’s what else we know: Operation Warp Speed, the White House COVID-19 initiative, plans to only ship half of all vaccine available each week. The other half will be held in storage and be released just before the second dose is due for those vaccinated the first time.
The vaccine is shipped in glass vials, five-dose vials for Pfizer and 10-dose vials for Moderna. The Pfizer vaccine must be stored at minus 94 degrees or below; Moderna‘s at minus 4 degrees.
Because of the ultracold storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine, it is being stored either at Pfizer production facilities or what are known as “freezer farms,” storage sites filled with row upon row of ultracold freezers about the size of a large home refrigerator, said Ostrowski.
Pfizer will ship its vaccine using UPS and FedEx as its main distributors. Moderna’s vaccine distribution is being coordinated by McKesson, the nation’s largest medical supply distributor.
Within 24 hours of the first vaccine being authorized by FDA it will be shipped to all 50 states and outlying U.S. territories.
“If they approve it on Friday, then we will ship on Saturday. If they approve it on Sunday, we will ship on Monday,” Army Col. R.J. Mikesh, Operation Warp Speed information Technology said at a briefing Monday.
How much vaccine is there?
As of last week, 6.4 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine were ready to ship, said Gen. Gustave Perna, co-leader of Operation Warp Speed in charge of logistics.
Of that, 5% will be held back for a safety factor, said Ostrowski.
“The vendor is going to keep it in case we have a truck that goes down, we have vaccine that gets lost, a natural disaster hits or the power goes out,” said Ostrowski, who, until July, had been director of the Army Acquisition Corps.
That leaves 6.08 million doses of vaccine, which will then be split in half, half to ship out and half to remain stored, he said.
The Pfizer and the Moderna shots both require two doses, given 21 and 28 days apart, respectively. Operation Warp Speed wants to ensure there is always vaccine available for the second dose.
“When we’re at about the 18th or 19th day, we’re going to move that product from Prizer’s location to the actual administration sites so that everybody that received their first dose has their second dose,” Ostrowski said.
That means that in the first round of vaccine deliveries, 3.04 million doses will be shipped. These are being divided up between the 50 states, the District of Columbia and six U.S. territories, with some also going to the departments of Defense and State, the Veterans Health Administration, the Bureau of Prisons and the Indian Health Service.
What’s the delivery schedule?
Once the initial doses have shipped, the system will begin regular deliveries.
Each week, whatever vaccine the authorized manufacturers have made will be divided. Half will be stored and the other half shipped out, said Ostrowski.
Each Thursday, Operation Warp Speed will ask vaccine producers how much vaccine they have made during the week. On Friday, staff will meet and decide how many doses can be allocated.
States will put in their orders on Saturday and deliveries will happen on Monday morning, said Mikesh.
Vaccine shipments will get what Ostrowski called “white glove” service.
“These packages are monitored in terms of temperature and also tracking. We’ll know where they are at all times,” he said.
For the Pfizer vaccine, each package about the size of a carry-on suitcase, must be signed for by the receivingpharmacy, hospital or clinic. The temperature controls will be inspected to make sure it has been held at the correct temperature during transit and the vials counted to make sure they’re all there.
UPS, FedEx and McKesson all have 24-hour hotlines sites can call if there are delivery troubles. In addition, Operation Warp Speed will have staff available 24/7, he said.
“We have two operations centers, one in Washington and one in Atlanta, both with 24-hour hotlines,” Ostrowski said.
How does OWS track doses?
Operation Warp Speed created a software system called Tiberius that allows states and local jurisdictions to order and track vaccine. It records all allocations of COVID-19 vaccines to states, territories, cities and federal entities, said Col. Deacon Maddox, OWS Chief of Plans, Operations and Analysis.
It works in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Tracking System, known as VTrckS,which has been distributing vaccine for children for a decade.
The systems also will allow networks to know who got their first shot and what kind it was and when they should get their second.
“Say you got your vaccination from a public health center in New York on Dec. 15 and now 21 days later you’re in Florida because you’re a snowbird and you who up at CVS,” Ostrowski said.
“We need to be able to pull up your name so we can show that it’s you and that you get the right vaccine,” he said.
Those systems will store as little personal information as possible to protect privacy. They won’t include Social Security numbers or driver license numbers, said Maddox.
“The only number that it would ask for is a date of birth,” he said.
Lower-tech systems also will be in place. Each dose of vaccine will come with a card that tells the recipient which vaccine they got and when they should come back for their second dose.
They’ll also be encouraged to take a picture of the card with their phone in case they lose their card.
“It’s backup to a backup to a backup,” Ostrowski said.
How can states trade vaccine?
Tiberius will also include an exchange system where states can trade vaccine, said Maddox. This is important because the initial allocations are based only on how much vaccine there is and the population of a state.
Idaho, for example, could have limited ultracold storage capacity, so might prefer to trade it’s allotment of Pfizer vaccine for the Moderna’s, since its cold requirements are less. A state like Massachusetts, with dozens of hospitals, might be fine with a higher proportion of Pfizer vaccine.
The exchanges “provide a way for jurisdictions to coordinate and negotiate to move vaccine,” said Maddox.
Such flexibility also could help a place such as Washington, D.C., where many workers live in surrounding states. Jurisdictions could use the exchange to more appropriately portion out vaccine where it’s needed.
“There are instances where jurisdictions are going to need to talk to each other because they have daytime, nighttime populations that have big disparities,” he said.
The federal government doesn’t want to be involved in making those trades. “That is a jurisdiction decision,” Maddox said.
“Section 230 needs to get done,” Mr. McCarthy said, referring to the repeal of the legal liability for social media companies.
Senior lawmakers shepherding the legislation have hoped that mustering a veto-proof majority in favor of it would cow Mr. Trump into signing the bill. But they privately conceded that the president’s mercurial nature made it difficult to predict what he might do.
The sheer willingness of Republican leaders to mow over Mr. Trump’s objections — after initially laboring for weeks to try to accommodate them — was a stark departure from the deference the president has normally received on Capitol Hill from his own party. It underscored lawmakers’ impatience with Mr. Trump’s attempt to derail the national security measure over a social media provision that has nothing to do with it.
“As important as this issue is, it falls outside the jurisdiction of this bill, and deserves its own domain, and a separate vote,” said Representative Don Bacon, Republican of Nebraska and a member of the Armed Services Committee. “Do you think you’ll get a better bill in two months? The answer is no.”
The legislation contains a number of noncontroversial, bipartisan measures, including new benefits for tens of thousands of Vietnam-era veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange, a 3 percent increase in pay for service members and a boost in hazardous duty incentive pay.
But it also includes a slew of measures pushed by Democrats that were expressly intended to constrain some of the impulses that Mr. Trump displayed during his time in office. One Democrat, Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, voted present.
The bill would take steps to slow or block Mr. Trump’s planned drawdown of American troops from Germany and Afghanistan, and would make it more difficult for the president to deploy military personnel to the southern border. Lawmakers also included language that would compel the president to impose new sanctions against Turkey for its purchase of a Russian antiaircraft missile system, a step Mr. Trump has been reluctant to take despite the urging of lawmakersin both parties.
President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani speaks during an appearance last week before the Michigan House Oversight Committee in Lansing. Days later, it was revealed he had tested positive for the coronavirus.
Rey Del Rio/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Rey Del Rio/Getty Images
President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani speaks during an appearance last week before the Michigan House Oversight Committee in Lansing. Days later, it was revealed he had tested positive for the coronavirus.
Rey Del Rio/Getty Images
In Michigan, the House of Representatives is being investigated by the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration over violations to COVID-19 workplace regulations following an employee complaint.
Since the start of the pandemic, 11 Michigan state legislators have publicly confirmed they tested positive for the coronavirus, yet the Republican-dominated Legislature has continued to meet in person, holding meetings with limited precautions.
A spokesman for the House speaker declined to reveal how many members or staffers have tested positive — leaving the task of contact tracing up to the House Business Office.
But this week, after President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani tested positive for the coronavirus, the state House has canceled three days of the lame-duck session. The state Senate will continue to meet.
Giuliani appeared before the House Oversight Committee for more than four hours on Wednesday alongside Trump campaign attorney Jenna Ellis in a House office building. Both were unmasked for the duration of the hearing — along with some lawmakers and several members of the 50-person audience.
At one point Giuliani asked Jessy Jacob, who was there to testify, “Would you be comfortable taking your mask off so that other people can hear you more clearly?” Jacob declined.
Mask-wearing and enforcement is sparse in committee hearings and the galleries above both legislative chambers in the state Capitol building. Multiple Republicans have declined to wear masks to their hearings throughout the pandemic, prompting a chorus of concern from their Democratic counterparts and Linda Vail, the health officer for Ingham County in Lansing, the capital.
Vail has written a letter to legislators asking them to enforce social distancing and the use of face coverings at their hearings, but there’s been little compliance. At both House and Senate Oversight Committee hearings chaired by Republicans last week, several members of the crowd didn’t wear masks, and many wore them improperly. Some lawmakers in both parties removed their masks when asking questions.
In the wake of the hearings, Vail has recommended that anyone who did not wear a face covering to Giuliani’s testimony should quarantine through Dec. 12.
Not only was the Rudy show dangerous to our democracy, but it also was a threat to our health.
We knew it was a bad idea, but my Republican colleagues in the state legislature pushed on anyway — endangering all of us in that hearing room and the capitol.
Republican House Speaker Lee Chatfield issued a statement Monday, saying, “Everyone needs to follow the science and do what the experts recommend,” accusing others of “simply trying to use Mayor Giuliani’s diagnosis for political ends.”
Chatfield took Giuliani’s word that “he was COVID-negative while in Michigan and no one in Michigan is being considered for contact tracing, per CDC guidelines” despite advice from the state’s chief medical executive and Vail, who said it’s likely Giuliani was contagious during his testimony.
On Tuesday, Chatfield released a third statement, saying a staff member who works with multiple committees had tested positive for the coronavirus.
“This staffer had nothing to do with the Oversight Committee hearing last week, and his or her positive result is unrelated to the hearing,” Chatfield said.
It is the second time that lawmakers have admitted to canceling a session because a legislator or staffer tested positive for the coronavirus.
At the beginning of the pandemic, the Legislature met three weeks after Rep. Tyrone Carter tested positive, two weeks after Rep. Isaac Robinson died of suspected COVID-19, and one day after Rep. Karen Whitsett tested positive — all three Detroit Democrats.
The Democratic Caucus called for temporary rules for emergency operation back in April, which would have permitted remote participation in committees and session, but Republicans in the chamber demurred, and the resolution has been sitting in committee since the day it was introduced.
“This is not about metrics, but about possessing the ability to have the human decency to show compassion,” Army Secretary Ryan D. McCarthy said Tuesday as he announced punishments and changes related to the killing of Vanessa Guillén.
Andrew Harnik/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Andrew Harnik/AP
“This is not about metrics, but about possessing the ability to have the human decency to show compassion,” Army Secretary Ryan D. McCarthy said Tuesday as he announced punishments and changes related to the killing of Vanessa Guillén.
Andrew Harnik/AP
The Army is punishing 14 leaders at Fort Hood, relieving some high-ranking officers of duty and suspending other leaders after a review sparked by the killing of Spc. Vanessa Guillén.
Army Secretary Ryan D. McCarthy cited profound problems at the base, including a command climate that was “permissive of sexual harassment and sexual assault.”
The disciplinary moves and other changes stem from the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee, whose chair,Chris Swecker, said its recommendations are meant “to address deeply dysfunctional norms and regain Soldiers’ trust” at Fort Hood and possibly beyond.
Following Guillén’s death and a string of other disappearances and deaths at the Texas post, the Army in September removed Maj. Gen. Scott Efflandt as Fort Hood’s senior commander. That change had been previously scheduled — but Efflandt was kept at the base rather than moving on to another command. In the new disciplinary moves, Efflandt has now been relieved.
McCarthy said he has accepted all of the review committee’s findings. The group submitted a report with nine findings and 70 recommendations, touching on areas from protocols around missing soldiers and crime prevention to public relations.
“The tragic death of Vanessa Guillén and a rash of other challenges at Fort Hood forced us totake a critical look at our systems, our policies and ourselves,” the secretary said in a midday briefing on the changes. “But without leadership, systems don’t matter.”
The committee’s report will force the Army to change its culture, McCarthy pledged.
“This is not about metrics, but about possessing the ability to have the human decency to show compassion for our teammates and to look out for the best interests of our soldiers,” he said.
The Army listed the leaders it relieved, starting with Efflandt. Also relieved were Col. Ralph Overland and Command Sgt. Maj. Bradley Knapp, the 3rd Cavalry Regiment commander and command sergeant major.
Other officers and leaders are suspended, pending the results of an investigation into 1st Cavalry Division’s command climate and its handling of the sexual harassment and assault prevention program.
Citing its routine policy, the Army said it doesn’t identify commanders and leaders at or below the battalion level who are the subjects of administrative action.
The lawsuit, filed in Montgomery County, Maryland, where diGenova lives, said “diGenova’s call to execute Plaintiff was received, as Defendant diGenova intended, by numerous angry Newsmax viewers as confirmation that Plaintiff was one of the ‘traitors’ who was stealing the election from President Trump.”
“An angry mob immediately bombarded Plaintiff with a barrage of death threats and harassment, which continue to this day,” the suit says.
“The Defendants’ threats have upended Plaintiff’s life, as well as his family’s security, and caused serious fear, distress, suffering, and even physical damage,” according to the suit, which says Krebs is a lifelong Republican and a “patriot.”
DiGenova, after an uproar over his comments about Krebs, claimed that he was joking that Krebs should be killed in a gruesome manner.
The lawsuit asks a judge to order Newsmax to remove from its website any recording of the threats made by diGenova, and for monetary damages in excess of $75,000.
“No one should be targeted and defamed as a ‘traitor’ for faithfully performing the duties of public service,” Krebs’ lawyer Jim Walden said in a statement.
“That is what happened to Chris and to Republicans all across the country, who truthfully, and based on their substantial experience, are upholding the integrity of the election in the face of a false narrative regarding its results,” Walden said.
A spokesman for the Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“No comment,” diGenova said in an email to CNBC when asked about the lawsuit, which Krebs earlier had suggested he would file.
Newsmax said: “Newsmax TV airs the The Howie Carr Show, a Boston-based syndicated radio program it licenses, as a simulcast for one hour each weekday. Mr. diGenova appeared by phone on that simulcast as a guest and made comments that were inappropriate. Mr. diGenova is not a paid contributor to Newsmax and has no official ties to him.”
“Mr. diGenova has appeared on Newsmax since then on two occasions stating he made the comment ‘facetiously’ and apologized,” the right-wing media outlet said.
“He stated that he intended no harm to Mr. Krebs. Newsmax believes that claims made by Mr. Krebs in his suit of a ‘conspiracy’ and defamation against him are a threat to free speech and his legal action endangers all media organizations that seek an open discourse of ideas and news.”
Trump, his campaign and legal team, and millions of the president’s supporters have refused to concede that President-elect Joe Biden won the election. The Democrat is on track to have 306 Electoral College votes when it meets next week, 36 more than needed for victory.
Trump and his lawyers claim he was swindled out of a victory by ballot fraud but have lost lawsuits seeking to invalidate votes for Biden.
The president recently has leaned on legislators and officials in several swing states to try to overturn Biden’s win in those states by having state legislatures select a slate of Trump electors for the Electoral College. Trump’s allies also are eyeing a last-gasp effort to have the U.S. House of Representatives reverse Biden’s win.
At least 14 Army leaders, including a general, were fired or suspended for systemic leadership failures at Fort Hood, Army officials said Tuesday, after numerous high-profile deaths and disappearances this year rocked the sprawling Texas installation.
Need to stay updated on coronavirus news in Texas? Our evening roundup will help you stay on top of the day’s latest updates. Sign up here.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing four battleground states — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — whose election results handed the White House to President-elect Joe Biden.
In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College.
There is no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, officials in most states and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr have said. Biden won in all four states where Paxton is challenging the results.
In a filing to the high court Tuesday, Paxton claims the four battleground states broke the law by instituting pandemic-related changes to election policies, whether “through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity.”
Paxton claimed that these changes allowed for voter fraud to occur — a conclusion experts and election officials have rejected — and said the court should push back a Dec. 14 deadline by which states must appoint their presidential electors.
“That deadline, however, should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm,” attorneys for Texas wrote.
Officials in Georgia — where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recertified the state’s election results again Monday after a recount — were quick to dismiss Paxton’s allegations, as were leaders in the other three states named in the lawsuit.
“The allegations in the lawsuit are false and irresponsible,” Georgia’s deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, said in a statement Tuesday. “Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen.”
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel dismissed Paxton’s suit as “a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading.”
“Mr. Paxton’s actions are beneath the dignity of the office of Attorney General and the people of the great state of Texas,” she said.
Paxton and Trump are political allies whose interests often line up in court, as with Texas’ challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Paxton, in public appearances, often characterizes their relationship as a friendly one, sharing the story of the time the president called while Paxton was in the shower.
Paxton, who has been under indictment since 2015 for felony securities fraud charges, is facing fresh criminal allegations from eight of his top deputies, who said they believe he broke the law by using the agency to do favors for a political donor. The FBI is investigating Paxton over those claims, according to the Associated Press. Paxton has denied wrongdoing.
Notably, Paxton himself is listed as the agency’s lead attorney on the case — a highly unusual role for the state official, who rarely plays a hands-on role even in the state’s major cases. Paxton’s new chief deputy, Brent Webster, signed onto the filing, but conspicuously absent is the agency’s top lawyer for appellate work, Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins, who typically argues the state’s cases before the Supreme Court and did so as recently as last month. None of Hawkins’ deputies is listed as contributing to the case, nor are any of the agency’s hundreds of other attorneys.
The agency instead appears to have hired an outside attorney, Lawrence Joseph, to contribute to the case.
The agency did not answer questions about its staffing choices for the lawsuit, nor did Hawkins himself.
Gov. Greg Abbott, a former Texas attorney general, did not return a request for comment on the lawsuit.
For now, it remains to be seen how Congress or the new Biden administration will help student loan borrowers contend with taxes stemming from debt forgiveness.
A possibility could be for the forgiveness to be part of a Covid-19 stimulus program, said Brooks. Perhaps it could be deemed a “qualified disaster relief payment” that’s excluded from gross income, he said.
Congress could also draft legislation that ensures only borrowers below a certain adjusted gross income receive tax-free forgiveness, said Leandra Lederman, director of the tax program at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law.
“You could do that here,” she said. “Exclude from income up to $50,000 of cancellation of indebtedness if the adjusted gross income is under a certain level and then phase it out.”
How Washington develops a solution for the taxes could come down to how they roll out the relief in the first place.
“There have been arguments back and forth that if this were done by executive order rather than through legislation, it’s hard to see how that would not be subject to tax liability,” said Kim Rueben, director of the State and Local Finance Initiative at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
“If it’s subject to tax liability, then it’s really bad policy right now,” she said. “The people who are going to do well are the ones who can afford the tax debt, but those who are struggling?”
“You’re replacing student loan debt with owing the IRS, and it doesn’t feel like a good exchange,” Rueben said.
This is a widget area - If you go to "Appearance" in your WP-Admin you can change the content of this box in "Widgets", or you can remove this box completely under "Theme Options"
