Although there is no evidence to suggest fraudulent activity occurred in Georgia during November’s election, the state’s top Republican leaders have voiced their support for additional criteria necessary to cast ballots by mail in future races.
Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, both Republicans, separately vouched for new policies that would require absentee voters to submit photo identification alongside their mail ballots in remarks delivered last month, when the state certified its election results for Joe Biden.
Raffensperger, who has pushed back fiercely against Donald Trump‘s unproven allegations that misconduct contributed to Georgia’s election outcome, called for reforming absentee ballot laws during a public address delivered November 20.
“I will work with legislators to find a solution that allows us to use the same security measures for votes by mail as we have for in-person voting,” he said. “That would include a photo ID requirement. We know this works.”
Amid the Trump campaign’s lawsuits aiming to halt, and later, reverse, Georgia’s certification, Raffensperger defended the state’s election procedures on several occasions and criticized attacks on their legitimacy. However, he acknowledged that an influx of mail-in ballots cast this year, as a result of the pandemic, “raised concerns about election integrity” during the November announcement.
Kemp advocated for Raffensperger’s proposed amendment to absentee voting protocols in remarks delivered later that day.
“Voters casting their ballots in person must show a photo ID, and we should consider applying that same standard to mail-in balloting,” the governor said, referencing the secretary of state’s comments.
“I’ve heard from many members of the general assembly, and I appreciate their input and share their concern,” Kemp continued. “I look forward to working with Lieutenant Governor Duncan, Speaker Ralston, and members of both bodies to address the issues that have been raised over the last several weeks.”
Cody Hall, a spokesperson from Kemp’s office, confirmed the governor’s “position has not changed” regarding photo identification requirements for absentee voters in a statement to Newsweek on Thursday.
The Trump campaign targeted Kemp and Raffensperger in the election’s aftermath. Most recently, the sitting president claimed even Georgia’s second presidential ballot audit would not yield accurate results without additional signature matching efforts to re-verify absentee voters’ identification.
Despite an absence of evidence to suggest fraud or misconduct impacted Georgia’s election results, the state’s top Republican officials have publicly shown support for reforming absentee ballot requirements amid allegations from Donald Trump’s campaign. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp speaks at a press conference announcing expanded statewide COVID testing on August 10, 2020 in Atlanta, Georgia. Elijah Nouvelage/Getty
The campaign’s more formal demands for repeat signature match procedures presented Georgia’s election officials with an impossible task, given that mail ballots are removed from their respective envelopes for privacy reasons after signatures are initially verified. Moreover, Raffensperger noted that Georgia “strengthened signature match this year” in a statement issued November 15, which explained that election workers are trained to confirm matches twice before ballots are considered verified. The state also established an online portal for voters to request absentee ballots digitally ahead of the election, and those who used it were required to submit photo identification.
“In this state, voters cast their ballots in secret so that no political party or candidate can ever intimidate nor threaten a voter into changing his or her vote. We will continue to protect the integrity of the vote,” Raffensperger said.
As reported by 11alive.com, election workers continued finalize results of Georgia’s statewide ballot recount, which followed a manual audit of all votes cast for president, on Thursday. The recount is not expected to alter the state’s election outcome.
Newsweek reached out to Raffensperger’s office for further comment, but did not receive a reply in time for publication.
WASHINGTON – Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., says he will challenge the tally of Electoral College votes when Congress officially certifies the results of the presidential election on Jan. 6.
The move, while unlikely to succeed, has generated praise from President Donald Trump.
In a plan first reported by Politico, Brooks told USA TODAY in a Thursday phone interview he would challenge the election results in Congress, saying he wanted to “reject the count of particular states” like Georgia and Pennsylvania that had “flawed election systems.”
“In my judgment, if only lawful votes cast by American citizens are counted. Donald Trump won the Electoral College,” Brooks claimed. The large numbers of mail-in ballots in key states, the majority of which broke for Biden, were “illegal,” he claimed.
There is no evidence for widespread illegal voting or fraud in the election.
“Double figures” of House lawmakers had come to him in support of the proposal, he continued, but “I’ve also not solicited any senators or anyone at the White House at this point.”
Trump tweeted his support for Brooks, and the congressman responded on Twitter, but Brooks said he had “no conversations” with anyone at the White House on the issue.
Challenge unlikely to succeed
A move by Congress to overturn the results of the Electoral College would be highly unusual. Biden won enough key swing states to win a majority of electoral votes, and the states the Trump campaign and its allies have contested have certified their results.
Brooks’ effort is unlikely to succeed. Although members of Congress can raise objections to Congress’ counting of electoral votes and declaration of results, both a member of the House and Senate must raise the objection, and then both the House and Senate would have to approve it for electoral votes to be excluded – an unlikely scenario with a Democratic-controlled House.
Several Democratic House lawmakers attempted to object to Congress’ January 2017 Electoral College count, but their objections were made without the support of senators and were overruled.
Brooks’ comments come as the president and his close allies continue to challenge the legitimacy of the election with false claims of mass voter fraud or corruption.
There is no evidence to substantiate the claims made by Trump or Brooks, though the Trump campaign continues to file lawsuits claiming impropriety. The cases have almost uniformly been thrown out by courts.
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters he “can’t imagine” that Congress would overturn the Electoral College results, acknowledging that while a Republican “could” protest it is unlikely “that goes anywhere.”
But the Justice Department and courts do not decide the election, Brooks said. Instead, he said, Congress is the “final arbiter” of presidential elections, and the congressman plans to give a speech on the election every day on the House floor he was permitted to until Jan. 6, when Congress would officially declare the election results.
California will impose a limited stay-at-home order on certain regions of the state where Covid-19 cases are placing a strain on intensive care units, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Thursday.
The state will be split into five regions — the Bay Area, Greater Sacramento, Northern California, San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. If the remaining ICU capacity in a region falls below 15%, it will trigger a three-week stay-at-home order, Newsom said.
The order would require bars, wineries, personal services, hair salons and barbershops to temporarily close. Personal services are businesses like nail salons, tattoo parlors and body waxing, according to the state’s website. Schools that meet the state’s health requirements and critical infrastructure would be allowed to remain open, and retail stores could operate at 20% capacity and restaurants would be allowed to offer take-out and delivery, the Democratic governor said.
So far, none of the regions have triggered the stay-at-home order, though every part of the state is expected to at some point in December. Newsom said he anticipates four of the five regions to have less than 15% ICU capacity “as early as the next day or two.” The Bay Area is projected to reach that milestone by mid-to-late December, he said.
“The bottom line is if we don’t act now, our hospital system will be overwhelmed. If we don’t act now, we’ll continue to see a death rate climb, more lives lost,” Newsom said during a press briefing.
Roughly 8,208 people were hospitalized with Covid-19 in California as of Wednesday, based on a weekly average, according to a CNBC analysis of data compiled by the COVID Tracking Project, which is run by journalists at The Atlantic. That figure marks a more than 35% increase compared with a week ago.
“We are right now in the most dangerous time of this pandemic for our state and our region,” San Francisco Mayor London Breed said in a tweet after the governor’s announcement.
“Cases and hospitalizations are surging. Unless we get things under control immediately, we could quickly run out of hospital beds in the Bay Area,” Breed said.
Under the state’s four-tiered reopening plan, most of the state’s population remains under the most restrictive “widespread” tier. Thursday’s announcement would impose the restrictions in “a much more broad, much more comprehensive way,” Newsom said.
The new measures are intended to prevent Californians from mixing with people who don’t live in their household and to keep gatherings outside rather than inside. However, people are still encouraged to walk their dog, exercise, go sledding or walk on the beach, Newsom said.
“This is not a permanent state. This is what many had projected,” Newsom said, adding that this will be the pandemics “final surge” as vaccines move closer to authorization.
“There’s light at the end of the tunnel,” he said.
— CNBC’s Riya Bhattacharjee contributed to this report.
Sens. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) signaled their openness to the package, which had been unveiled by a group of moderate Republican and Democratic senators on Tuesday. The measure is more than what Senate Republicans had originally offered and less than what House Democrats had wanted, but it is designed to try to provide immediate relief to some parts of the economy as the pandemic enters a dangerous and increasingly deadly phase.
President Donald Trump rebuked Attorney General William Barr Thursday for disputing his unsubstantiated allegations of widespread voter fraud in the presidential election.
“Well, he hasn’t done anything. So, he hasn’t looked,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “They haven’t looked very hard, which is a disappointment, to be honest with you, because it’s massive fraud.”
The president’s remarks come days after Barr declared that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has uncovered no evidence of widespread fraud after following up on specific complaints and information the agency had received.
“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” Barr told the Associated Press on Monday.
The attorney general added, “There’s been one assertion that would be systemic fraud, and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results. And the [Homeland Security Department] and DOJ have looked into that, and so far we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that.”
The statement was yet another blow to Trump’s narrative that the election was rigged and stolen by the Democrats. The president has refused to concede the race to President-elect Joe Biden, who was projected the winner on November 7. Biden soundly defeated Trump in the electoral vote, winning 306 to Trump’s 232. He’s also leading the national popular vote by nearly 7 million.
Trump’s legal team has launched dozens of lawsuits, mostly in key battleground states, refuting the election’s results. Nearly all of them have failed. Barr told the AP that the civil lawsuits being launched by the president’s campaign and his Republican allies were the appropriate legal action.
But on Thursday Trump asserted that the attorney general should be looking at the matter through a criminal lens.
“This is not civil. He thought it was civil,” Trump told reporters. “This is not civil. This is criminal stuff. This is very bad criminal stuff.”
President Donald Trump speaks about the election after presenting the Medal of Freedom to former college football coach Lou Holtz in the Oval Office on December 3. On Thursday, Trump rebuked Attorney General William Barr for finding no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the presidential race. Doug Mills/Pool/Getty Images
Barr has been one of the president’s most loyal Cabinet members since his appointment in 2019. Like Trump, he assailed the special counsel’s investigation into Russian election interference and ties to the president’s campaign in 2016. His department has also interfered in investigations of Trump’s former allies, including Roger Stone and Michael Flynn.
But when asked Thursday if he still had confidence in his attorney general, Trump declined to say. It’s been reported by CNN, ABC and TheWashington Post that Trump is angry with Barr and considered firing him for declaring that no widespread voter fraud has been found.
“Ask me that in a number of weeks from now,” the president replied. “They should be looking at all of this fraud.”
Newsweek reached out to the DOJ for comment on Trump’s remarks but did not receive a response in time for publication.
AT&T‘s Warner Bros. announced on Thursday that all of its films scheduled to launch in 2021 will be released on HBO Max at the same time they are available in theaters. It’s currently a one-year plan.
It’s an example of how AT&T is adapting to the coronavirus pandemic, allowing people to safely watch new movies at home without having to venture out to a movie theater, many of which have been closed to the increasing spread of Covid. It’s also a move that Warner Bros. already made with “Wonder Woman 1984,” which will be released to theaters and HBO Max on Christmas Day. That movie was originally scheduled to come out in the summer, but was delayed several times before WarnerMedia decided to release it on HBO Max.
HBO Max is AT&T’s online video service, which launched in the U.S. in May. It costs $14.99 per month and includes access to movies and TV shows.
“No one wants films back on the big screen more than we do,” Ann Sarnoff, chair and CEO of WarnerMedia Studios and Networks group said. “We know new content is the lifeblood of theatrical exhibition, but we have to balance this with the reality that most theaters in the U.S. will likely operate at reduced capacity throughout 2021.”
Warner Bros. movies launching in 2021 include “The Little Things,” “Judas and the Black Messiah,” “Tom & Jerry,” “Godzilla vs. Kong,” “Mortal Kombat,” “Those Who Wish Me Dead,” “The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It,” “In The Heights, Space Jam: A New Legacy,” “The Suicide Squad,” “Reminiscence,” “Malignant,” “Dune,” “The Many Saints of Newark,” “King Richard,” “Cry Macho” and “Matrix 4.”
Universal took a similar approach in April and released “Trolls World Tour” online and in theaters at the same time. But, that required people to purchase the movie since it wasn’t available as part of a subscription package at the time. In July, Universal shortened the number of days films needed to run in theaters before they were available online through an agreement with AMC Theaters. Prior to that agreement, theaters had exclusive rights to Universal films for 90 days.
Disney has also experimented with launching a blockbuster movie on directly on streaming. Earlier this year, Disney released “Mulan” on Disney+ as a one-time, $30 purchase.
Cinemark, a U.S. movie theater chain, responded to WarnerMedia’s decision on Thursday afternoon. “In light of the current operating environment, we are making near-term booking decisions on a film-by-film basis,” a Cinemark spokesperson said. “At this time, Warner Brothers has not provided any details for the hybrid distribution model of their 2021 films.”
Gavin Newsom gives an update on California’s Covid response Friday, June 26, 2020. | Rich Pedroncelli, Pool/AP
OAKLAND, Calif. — California regions will face stay-at-home orders when their hospital capacity shrinks to an alarmingly low level under a new plan Gov. Gavin Newsom’s health chief described to state lawmakers Thursday morning.
In a region where rising cases threaten to overwhelm limited intensive care unit capacity, residents will be directed to remain in their homes unless they are conducting essential activities, California Health and Human Services Agency Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly told lawmakers, according to a source familiar with the details. One trigger point is 15 percent of ICU capacity within a given region.
Newsom will divide the state into five geographic regions and lockdowns would last for three weeks minimum, based on the briefing. Residents would be unable to gather, while playgrounds, salons and restaurant dining would have to close. Food takeout would still be allowed, while hotels could only open for critical infrastructure support.
Lawmakers were not told if any region has yet reached the threshold for a stay-home requirement. Newsom is scheduled to hold a press conference at noon.
The governor has escalated California’s restrictions in recent weeks as the state’s test positivity rate and hospitalizations continue mounting at unprecedented rates, thrusting the state into what Newsom has called the pandemic’s most perilous phase. The governor has already clamped down by pulling 52 of 58 counties into the most stringent tier of restrictions, slamming the door on various forms of commerce and gatherings and issuing a nighttime curfew.
Schools could still remain open when their regions get locked down, based on a memo that school administrators issued this week.
A renewed stay-at-home mandate, which Newsom has telegraphed for days, would represent the governor’s most aggressive attempt yet to get ahead of a winter surge. Any regional lockdown would return residents to restrictions they endured in the spring after Newsom issued the nation’s first statewide stay-at-home order.
Public health experts credit California’s broad adherence to the March order with protecting the state’s health care system from collapse and averting more deaths.
But the state’s population may be less inclined to obey a second lockdown as pandemic fatigue collides with misbehavior by Newsom and other officials who have admitted to dining at restaurants or in large groups even as they urge Californians to avoid similar gatherings.
A 19-year-old woman talks with nurse Valeria Zafisoa at a traveling contraception clinic in eastern Madagascar run by the British nonprofit group Marie Stopes International.
Samantha Reinders for NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Samantha Reinders for NPR
A 19-year-old woman talks with nurse Valeria Zafisoa at a traveling contraception clinic in eastern Madagascar run by the British nonprofit group Marie Stopes International.
Samantha Reinders for NPR
Among the promises that President elect-Biden is expected to fulfill immediately upon taking office: lifting a ban that President Trump imposed on U.S. foreign aid dollars related to abortion.
Specifically, the ban prohibits foreign aid funding for privately-run overseas-based groupsthat “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” for women. Among the activities that are barred: providing referrals for abortion or offering advice or medical information on the procedure. And this is prohibited even if the group funds their communications around abortions with non-U.S. sources.
The funding ban was first imposed in 1984 by then-President Ronald Reagan and has been the subject of political ping-pong ever since. Each incoming Democratic president has lifted it. Each incoming Republican president who followed a Democrat has reenacted it.
But with Biden, there’s a twist: Even if he repeals the ban as expected, there’s reason to wonder how much things will actually change on the ground for the people on the receiving end of U.S. foreign aid money. Here are five reasons:
Biden will have a delayed start
Because Trump enacted the funding ban through executive order, technically Biden will be able to lift it by an executive order of his own upon taking office. But in practice, “it isn’t as simple as signing a presidential memorandum repealing the policy,” says Adrienne Lee of the advocacy group PAI. All the foreign aid groups eligible for U.S. funding will need to be notified that they can once again discuss abortion, she notes.Existing grant agreements and upcoming grant offers will need to be re-drafted. Lee says that means that, ideally, Biden’s transition team would already have started working with staffers at relevant agencies such as USAID to lay the groundwork for those changes.
But abortion rights advocates are concerned none of that work will begin until Biden is inaugurated. For weeks after the election Trump’s political appointee who heads the General Services Administration, Emily W. Murphy, refused to sign a letter authorizing Biden’s team to formally begin the transition process. And even now that the transition is finally underway, based on various bureaucratic steps the Trump Administration took to entrench the funding ban shortly before the election, Lee says she expects the Trump Administration will still throw up obstacles. “Delaying coordination with the transition team delays all of this needed pre-work that minimizes the timeframe to get the global notification [of the ban’s upcoming repeal] out,” says Lee.
Trump’s version of the ban was far more sweeping
While Biden’s anticipated repeal of the funding ban will mark the third time a Democratic president has lifted it, the version of the ban that Biden will be reversing is far more sweeping. Previous Republican presidents had applied the ban only to funding of programs that offer family planning such as birth control. Trump extended it to the vast majority of global health programs — clinics that distribute HIV-AIDS drugs, for instance, or that treat malaria in children, or provide nutritional assistance.
The Kaiser Family Foundation has estimated that this broader banaffected $7.3 billion in U.S. foreign aid programming for the 2020 fiscal year — compared to about $600 million that would have been involved if Trump had kept the ban limited to family planning programs. To comply with the ban many aid groups terminated partnerships and staff or completely restructured their operations. So once Biden lifts the ban, that many more groups will face the choice of whether to revert to their modus operandi pre-ban, says Jennifer Kates, the foundation’s senior vice president and director of global health and HIV policy.
“To what extent are there going to be some implementers who just say, ‘You know what, I’m not going to go through that again. It’s too challenging to have to do this back and forth.'” says Kates. “That’s a question we don’t know the answer to.”
It’s unclear how many groups changed their practices in the first place
Essentially aid groups fell into three buckets: Those that were not engaged in activities that were prohibited by the ban, and who therefore didn’t need to make changes to their practices. Those who did have to modify their approach in order to be in compliance. And those who decided not to take U.S. funding rather than cease banned activities. But Kates says there is not comprehensive data on how many groups were in each category. This makes it impossible to say how many groups will resume banned practices once the ban is lifted.
That’s not to say there isn’t evidence that the ban had an impact. A September study in the journal Health Affairs found that of nearly 200 aid groups that receive money through the one of the affected U.S. funding streams — the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) — 28% reported they had stopped or reduced at least one health service in response to the funding ban. The affected services included delivering information about sexual and reproductive health, pregnancy counseling, provision of contraceptives, and HIV testing and counseling. Similarly, a study last year in the medical journal The Lancet found that the funding ban actually increased the rate of abortions by about 40% in the countries studied — likely, said the authors, because it led to a reduction in access to contraception and a consequent rise in unwanted pregnancies.
Then there’s the case of organizations that decided to forgo U.S. funding rather than comply with rules they deemed fundamentally at odds with their missions. A review released by the Department of State last summer found that only eight out of 1,340 primary funding recipients had taken that route — along with 47 groups that receive their funding as a pass-through from primary recipients.
But several advocacy groups opposed to the ban questioned how thorough the review was, noting that, among other concerns, the review only covered the first two years of the ban. Also, while the review found that in most cases the U.S. government was able to redirect the funding to a group willing to abide by the ban, the review documented several cases where this was not possible, or took time, resulting in substantial reduction in the provision of vital health services such as distribution of HIV medication.
The U.S. could reduce its aid budget
One of the groups that opted to give up U.S. funding was MSI Reproductive Choices (formerly known as Marie Stopes International). Sarah Shaw, head of advocacy for MSI, says while she hopes the organization can once again count on U.S. funding, it’s not a given. Shaw says she’s mindful of periods during Bill Clinton’s presidency when — notwithstanding the fact that he had lifted the funding ban on coming into office — “it was not such a great time for family planning because Congress just wasn’t appropriating the funds.”
Also adds, Shaw, “we’ve got a bear in mind that we’re in the midst of a COVID pandemic which is putting tremendous domestic pressures on resources. We really are in uncharted waters.”
Zara Ahmed, associate director of federal issues for the Guttmacher Institute, a research groups that backs abortion rights, is hoping Congress will actually devote more funding to family planning. In 1994, at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, the 179 United Nations member states — including the U.S. — agreed by consensus on a plan for expanding access to reproductive healthcare.
‘It calls for two-thirds of the cost to be born by developing countries,” says Ahmed. “And then the donor country’s fair share should be decided based on their economies size.”
According to that calculation, says Ahmed, the U.S. should be providing $1.66 billion per year. But to date, she says, “the U.S. has not lived up to that commitment, unfortunately.”
Other countries have also fallen short, such that by the Guttmacher Institute’s calculation “across 132 low- and middle-income countries around the world, there are more than 218 million women of reproductive age who have an unmet need for modern contraception.”
Then again … Congress could pass a law that ends the ping-pong game for good
Ahmed says another way that Congress could tip the scales is if it passes a pending bill that would prevent future presidents from re-enacting the funding ban. This could offer foreign aid groups that want to start offering reproductive services again the reassurance that they will not risk another costly round of disruption if a Republican wins the presidency four years from now.
Two Republican senators have already co-sponsored the legislation — Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — suggesting that there’s a chance it could get adopted regardless of which party ends up controlling the Senate.
Yet Ahmed is reluctant to predict that far ahead. “I think that we could speculate in a lot of different ways about what might happen with the Senate, what bills they might prioritize. There’s definitely a long way to go.”
“The reality is December and January and February are going to be rough times,” Redfield said at an event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “I actually believe they’re going to be the most difficult in the public health history of this nation, largely because of the stress that’s going to be put on our health-care system.”
Many hospitals around the country are already worn out from months of work treating the relentless inflow of Covid patients, along with patients who still require medical attention for other ailments. Dr. Megan Ranney, an emergency physician and director of the Brown-Lifespan Center for Digital Health, said she’s hearing from colleagues around the country of situations similar to that of “low-income countries,” where medical care must be rationed.
“We’re running out of beds, and we’re also going to run out of staff,” she said. “Our health-care system is full even in normal times, so to add an extra 100,000 patients on top of our existing burden of disease and injury is almost unfathomable.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke Thursday for the first time since at least the 2020 election as Congress scrambles to strike a coronavirus stimulus deal and prevent a government shutdown.
The congressional leaders discussed their “shared commitment to completing an omnibus [spending bill] and COVID relief as soon as possible,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said in a tweet. They have signaled they want to resolve both thorny issues by Dec. 11, the last day of government funding.
The phone call comes amid the strongest push in months to break a logjam over how to boost an economy and health-care system weighed down by the pandemic. Pelosi engaged in a frantic series of aid talks with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin before the Nov. 3 election, but the discussions did not yield an agreement.
Earlier Thursday, McConnell said he has seen “hopeful signs” for striking a stimulus deal before the end of the year. Among other implications if Congress fails to act, about 12 million people could lose unemployment benefits after Christmas.
“Compromise is within reach. We know where we agree. We can do this,” the Kentucky Republican said on the Senate floor.
Whether Democrats, who lead the House and can hold up any bill in the Senate, will accept McConnell’s vision of compromise remains to be seen. Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., cut their aid demands Wednesday when they embraced a $908 billion bipartisan proposal as a starting point for talks with McConnell.
Evacuation zones for the rapidly-growing Bond Fire are being expanded to thousands of residents in communities near Orange County’s inland canyons, as the county’s third major wildfire of the season burns south from Silverado.
The fire spread rapidly overnight amid high winds, with 7,200 acres burned and 0% containment as of noon as hundreds of firefighters continued to battle the blaze. Multiple buildings are reported to have burned in the fire, which reportedly started as a structure fire.
The OC Animal Care shelter in Tustin is accepting dogs, cats and other small pets from the evacuation areas, while horses and other large animals from mandatory evacuation zones can be brought to the OC Fairgrounds in Costa Mesa, officials said in a news release.
It’s the second time in two months that a wildfire in Orange County’s residents are being urged to evacuate the inland canyons and nearby communities as a quickly-growing wildfire rages in the canyons.
OCFA
The Orange County Fire Authority shared this photo of fire fighters working the Bond Fire at 8 a.m. Thursday.
This is one of several wildfires reported across Southern California overnight, with reported fires near Camp Pendleton, Corona and the Angeles National Forest. Orange County was under a red flag warning issued yesterday and set to cover through Saturday due to high winds, which officials have said is helping push the spread of the Bond Fire.
Silverado Canyon is under mandatory evacuation, along with portions of Portola Hills and Foothill Ranch west of El Toro and north of the 241 freeway, according to notices sent out by the Orange County Fire Authority.
Officials are warning Lake Forest residents they may need to evacuate soon, but no orders have been put out yet.
The Irvine Police Dept. posted on Twitter that they do not believe the city will have to evacuate, due to a buffer zone surrounding the city after the burnout from the Silverado Fire in October, but that the city will be affected by the smoke.
For the live evacuation map posted by the OC Sheriffs’ Dept., click here.
OCFA
The Orange County Fire Authority shared this photo just after midnight Wednesday saying that the Bond Fire was spotting across Santiago Canyon Road and residents should prepare to evacuate.
Residents in the area scrambled to evacuate in the early hours of the morning, with some reports on social media that their electricity had failed or was shut off.
“I live one street over from bond. No one in the community had power or phone service so people were going around banging on doors to wake people up,” one resident said on Twitter. “Everything happened really fast. Started from a house fire and spread.”
Fire officials said there’s no congregate shelter due to the coronavirus pandemic, amid a skyrocketing surge in cases and hospitalizations in Orange County.
“You’re strongly encouraged to seek safety with family/friends or in a hotel,” the OCFA posted on their Twitter page. “Due to COVID-19, no congregate shelter is offered. A temporary OC Red Cross evacuation point is at 8405 E. Chapman Ave, Orange. Info and restrooms available.”
The OCFA activated their hotline for evacuating residents early this morning, at 714-628-7085.
The OCFA did not return requests for comment.
Noah Biesiada is a Voice of OC Reporting Fellow. Contact him at [email protected] or on Twitter @NBiesiada.
Former Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have said they are willing to take a coronavirus vaccine to prove that the treatment is safe and effective. They may even film themselves getting injected.
The announcement comes as large swaths of the American public have expressed concerns about taking a potential coronavirus vaccine, despite early results from several vaccine trials showing them to be highly effective at stopping COVID-19.
“I promise you that when it’s been made for people who are less at risk, I will be taking it,” Obama said on an episode of SiriusXM’s “The Joe Madison Show” that airs Thursday. Some audio of Obama’s comments were released on YouTube Wednesday.
“I may end up taking it on TV or having it filmed, just so that people know that I trust this science,” Obama continued. “What I don’t trust is getting COVID.”
The office of former President George W. Bush confirmed to CNN that he would be willing to take a vaccine to boost public trust as well.
“President Clinton will definitely take a vaccine as soon as available to him, based on the priorities determined by public health officials. And he will do it in a public setting if it will help urge all Americans to do the same,” Angel Ureña, a spokesman for Clinton, told USA TODAY.
A November Gallup poll found 58% of Americans are willing to receive a coronavirus vaccine, an increase from early in the year when hesitancy about vaccines was widespread.
That said, public health experts say at least 60%-70% of the population needs to take a vaccine to achieve “herd immunity,” a public health term for when a critical mass of the public is inoculated against a given infectious disease.
“I understand, historically, everything dating back all the way to the Tuskegee experiments and so forth, why the African American community would have some skepticism,” Obama said during his SiriusXM interview.
“But the fact of the matter is, is that vaccines are why we don’t have polio anymore. And they’re the reason why we don’t have a whole bunch of kids dying from measles and smallpox and diseases that used to decimate entire populations and communities,” the former president stressed.
Federal regulators are expected to confirm several of the most promising vaccines in the coming weeks, with states and biopharmaceutical companies already planning on mass distribution of vaccines throughout the country during the early months of next year.
At a rally on Wednesday, Powell and Wood solicited donations and urged Republican voters against casting their ballots for the two senators, arguing that Loeffler and Perdue — both ardent Trump allies — had been insufficiently supportive of the president.
“I think I would encourage all Georgians to make it known that you will not vote at all until your vote is secure,” Powell said.
“They have not earned your vote. Don’t you give it to them,” Wood added. “Why would you go back and vote in another rigged election, for God’s sake!”
Asked on Thursday what exactly was behind Powell and Wood’s efforts to discourage support for Georgia’s two Republican senators, Sterling said: “Who the heck knows? I mean, it’s ‘Looney Tunes.’ … I’m speechless. That’s the best I’ve got right now.”
Trump is scheduled to headline a rally in Georgia on Saturday for Loeffler and Perdue. But his appearance is already provoking concerns among Republicans in the state who anticipate the president will dwell on his unfounded fraud claims and repeat his recent attacks against Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
The plan introduced by “The Problem Solvers Caucus,” a group of 25 Democrats and 25 Republicans in both the U.S. Senate and House, splits the more than $900 billion to 15 different areas.
A majority goes to three areas:
$288 billion for small businesses, including more fund for the Paycheck Protection Program
$180 billion for additional Unemployment Insurance
$160 billion for state, local and tribal governments
Small businesses
The Paycheck Protection Program will get another round of funding. The forgivable loans to keep workers on payroll closed applications in August.
“I am particularly pleased that this package includes funding for another round of Paycheck Protection Program forgivable loans, which has helped keep our small businesses afloat. In Maine alone, the PPP has helped sustain the jobs of 250,000 workers,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
The $288 billion also will help fund the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, a low interest loan from the Small Business Administration ” designed to provide economic relief to businesses that are currently experiencing a temporary loss of revenue due to coronavirus.”
The money will also go to restaurants, stages, and deductibility.
In addition, Republicans pushed for “short term Federal protection from Coronavirus related lawsuits.”
“Included in this measure is a liability provision that provides a temporary suspension of any liability-related lawsuits at the state or federal level associated with COVID-19, giving states enough time to put in place their own protections,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah).
State, local and tribal governments
Democrats, meanwhile, got a win with funding for state, local and tribal governments. State governments have been dealing with many key aspects of the COVID-19 response.
“If enacted into law, today’s bipartisan package would increase unemployment benefits to help families make ends meet, give essential assistance to small businesses on the verge of closing, provide funds to the state and local governments who’ve led the response to this crisis, and much more – including support for schools, hospitals, and vaccine distribution,” said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.
Unemployment insurance
Extended federal unemployment benefits expired in September. Previously, the program added a $600 federal benefit.
This plan would provide a $300 weekly addition for four months.
Stimulus checks?
No, the plan doesn’t include the second round of economic impact payments. Earlier in the year, the IRS issued 160 million checks of $1,200 per eligible taxpayer, plus $500 per child.
What else is included:
The rest of the funds will go to support:
$82 billion for education
$45 billion for transportation, including airlines, airports, buses, transit and Amtrak
$25 billion for housing assistance, related to rentals
$16 billion for vaccine development and distribution, testing and contact tracing
$12 billion for Community Development Financial Institutions and Minority Depository Institutions
$10 billion each for the U.S. Postal Service, child care and broadband
$5 billion for opioid treatment
$4 billion for student loans
“This is a win for the American people, for common sense, and for problem-solving. With cases spiking, winter around the corner, and countless small businesses closing every day, and far too many families hurting, we simply cannot leave anyone out in the cold. This is an essential down payment on what our families, small businesses, and local communities need,” said Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ-5).
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell dismissed the bipartisan offer on Tuesday, instead aiming to rally Republicans around the $550 billion GOP proposal.
With coronavirus hospitalizations surging in California and healthcare providers increasingly under strain, officials are eyeing a return to the kind of stay-at-home restrictions that helped curb the virus’ spread in the spring.
What is unclear, though, is whether residents will stomach even a modified lockdown as willingly as they did in March and April, when California’s swift and sweeping action made it an early national model in the battle against the coronavirus.
The surging infection numbers across the state, experts and officials say, indicate that many are already weary of restrictions and, in the midst of the holiday season, less inclined to stay home.
The politics of the pandemic also play a role. A cadre of cities and organizations have risen to challenge stricter rules imposed by Los Angeles County in the last week.
Beverly Hills and a few smaller cities are talking about creating their own public health departments, saying the county’s rules are too strict and not backed up by data. The restaurant industry was in court Wednesday challenging the suspension of outdoor dining, while card clubs have lobbied officials to allow them to reopen.
Others have cried hypocrisy after several top officials — including Gov. Gavin Newsom and the mayors of San Francisco and San Jose — engaged in the same kind of dining activities they have urged the public to avoid.
But without further action, California risks one of the worst public health catastrophes in the state’s modern history, with the state’s death toll of nearly 20,000 plausibly doubling by the end of winter. Already, intensive care units in a number of hospitals statewide are close to reaching their normal staffed capacity.
Some of the anger stems from California instituting painful pandemic control measures without having experienced the kind of full-blown catastrophe seen elsewhere, said Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, chair of UC San Francisco’s Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics.
“What we really need is leaders to, I think, lead more out of hope and not out of fear,” Bibbins-Domingo said. “We have two highly effective vaccinations just around the corner…. We have an end in sight to the pandemic. But we have to get through the next month” to avoid an “exponential rise in cases, transmissions, hospitalizations and death.”
The Newsom administration has been working on a new statewide order that could be as far-reaching as the shutdown ordered in March. Such an order could be announced as early as Thursday. Some local health officials are pushing for statewide rules, saying the piecemeal approach has become problematic.
“Our local measures just by themselves are not enough. They’re not sufficient without these broader steps being taken at the state and federal level, both,” James Williams, the county counsel of Santa Clara County, said Wednesday. “We think it is absolutely critical that there be bold and swift state and federal measures to deal with the surge.”
California was the first state to impose a stay-at-home order, and its success prompted others to follow suit in the spring.
When rapid reopenings led to a new coronavirus surge over the summer, California unveiled a new system that, for several months, appeared to work as intended. Polls taken in the summer and spring showed strong support for the rules.
With even more stringent requirements back on the table, and residents fatigued after months of living with COVID-19, health officials are becoming increasingly blunt in their language and messaging.
“We do have a choice to make, each one of us: Do we want to be part of the solution to this horrifying surge, or do we want to be the problem?” L.A. County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said during a briefing Wednesday. “Because where you fall in this effort now has a life-or-death consequence, possibly for people you know and love, but certainly for people across the county who are loved by others.”
Meanwhile, the distressing news continues to pile up.
The number of Californians hospitalized with the coronavirus rose to a record high for a fourth straight day — rising past 8,500 in data released Wednesday amid continued concerns that a sustained increase in new cases will swamp the state’s healthcare system.
Though the 8,517 hospitalizations are unprecedented, officials caution that the figure will not represent the ceiling of the latest surge, as it largely excludes anyone who was only recently infected, including over the Thanksgiving weekend.
Despite the grim outlook, skepticism appears to be building at least in some quarters about whether more shutdowns are the answer.
The Beverly Hills City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to oppose the county’s outdoor dining ban and asked staff to research the idea of forming an independent public health department that would allow the city to set its own rules. Lancaster and a few other cities have also talked about this approach, though it remains to be seen how many will earnestly pursue a breakaway effort.
Pasadena, which has its own city health department, has decided not to follow the county’s lead and has seen business boom at its outdoor dining spots.
In a resolution that calls for the L.A. County Board of Supervisors to repeal the ban, Beverly Hills council members cited the detrimental effect on businesses and said there was a lack of scientific evidence to support the move. The action brought cheers from some hard-pressed restaurant owners.
“Our business has been devastated,” said Steve Scott Springer, general manager of Spago Beverly Hills. “We already had to lay off 100 employees. Now we’ve laid off 60 more.”
The South Bay Cities Council of Governments, a joint powers authority of 16 cities and parts of the county, recently sent a letter to Newsom asking that he “reconsider allowing significantly large areas that are less impacted by COVID cases and hospitalizations to have more local control over the restrictions on businesses in their area.”
“It is time to replace the ‘one-size-fits-all policies’ with an ability to adopt local restrictions in designated areas,” the letter states.
Restaurants are also trying to overturn L.A. County’s ban in court.
Outdoor dining had offered a lifeline for struggling restaurants during the pandemic. The California Restaurant Assn. sued to stop the ban, with a downtown L.A. restaurant, Engine Co. No. 28, filing a similar suit.
A judge on Wednesday ordered public health officials to show scientific evidence justifying the measure. The county must return to court Tuesday to present evidence supporting the ban, L.A. County Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant said at a hearing.
“You have to do a risk-benefit analysis for public health. You don’t just talk about the risk of spreading disease. You have to talk about the benefit of keeping restaurants open,” Chalfant said.
Chalfant expressed some skepticism about the ban. Based on the studies he has reviewed, the risk of spreading the coronavirus from outdoor dining appears minimal, he said.
But the county should have a chance to “answer those questions and fill those holes,” the judge said.
It’s not just the restaurant rules that have come under fire.
On the first day that card clubs in L.A. County were forced to close because of rising coronavirus cases, representatives for the casinos and the cities where they operate urged officials to allow them to reopen, citing the financial strain.
The card clubs were originally closed in March but were allowed to reopen only in outdoor settings in early October. The casinos were ordered to close again Monday.
“Shutting down our casinos is like shutting down our cities,” City of Commerce Mayor Ivan Altamirano said during a news conference at the Commerce Casino.
The view of shutdowns is different for some who have lost loved ones to COVID-19.
Remy Tateishi is mourning the death of her husband of 21 years, David Paul Harris, a 54-year-old deputy attorney for the California Department of Transportation.
Tateishi said she and her husband were diligent about protecting themselves — wearing masks and keeping distance from others. Several times a week, Harris underwent dialysis treatments. In preparation for an Oct. 7 medical procedure, Harris took a coronavirus test, and the results came back positive. About a week later, he became ill after returning from a dialysis treatment and was rushed to an intensive care unit.
On the last day they spoke, Tateishi heard her husband, through a video call, faintly say the words “I love you” underneath a large mask that muffled his voice. He repeated it over and over, even forming his hands in the shape of a heart. He died the next day, Oct. 20.
“People talk about, ‘I can’t go into a restaurant.’ They talk about little minute things they do, but they don’t see the impact,” Tateishi said. “I miss my husband so much. I never thought this would happen because we were so careful, every day…. He was so loving and he was so genuine … and now I look across the room and see his urn, it just kills me.”
Times staff writers Jaclyn Cosgrove, Hayley Smith, Hugo Martin and John Myers contributed to this report.
Caribou from the Porcupine Caribou Herd migrate onto the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Alaska. The refuge has long been eyed for oil exploration.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/AP
Caribou from the Porcupine Caribou Herd migrate onto the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Alaska. The refuge has long been eyed for oil exploration.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/AP
In a last-minute push, the Trump administration announced Thursday that it will auction off drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in just over a month, setting up a final showdown with opponents before President-elect Joe Biden takes office.
The announcement of a lease sale comes sooner than some expected: The Bureau of Land Management did not wait for the comment and nominations period to officially end before scheduling a sale date.
The sale, which is now set for Jan. 6, could cap a bitter, decades-long battle over whether to drill in the coastal plain, and it seals the administration’s efforts to open the land to development. But the Trump administration’s plan for the sale may also draw legal challenges from drilling opponents, who could target the aggressive timeline in court.
Environmental groups have vowed to continue to fight to keep drill rigs out of the coastal plain and have filed lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s environmental reviews.
Biden has also said he opposes drilling in the refuge. But if leases are finalized before he takes office Jan. 20, they could be difficult to revoke.
The coastal plain covers about 1.6 million acres, an area roughly the size of Delaware, and makes up about 8% of the vast refuge. It’s home to polar bears, caribou and other wildlife. It’s also thought to hold billions of barrels of oil.
The Trump administration started the formal process of selling oil rights in the coastal plain on Nov. 17, when it launched the “call for nominations,” a 30-day window for oil companies to confidentiality tell the government which pieces of land they would like included in a lease sale. That comment period ends Dec. 17.
Under a lease-sale agreement, the company would lease the land from the government and purchase it at the end of the lease term.
To the west, in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, the government has waited until the comment period closes before providing notice of a lease sale. It must provide at least 30 days notice before holding a sale.
It remains unclear who might show up to a coastal plain lease sale. Oil and gas companies aren’t talking publicly about whether they plan to bid.
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"
