# data[].attributes.body
1. Include the link or upload
2. Put title of the article, Source of the article and date of the article.
3. Why is this an example of this principle?
4. What is your opinion of this?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Include the link or upload
2. Put title of the article, Source of the article and date of the article.
3. Why is this an example of this principle?
4. What is your opinion of this?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Include the link or upload
2. Put title of the article, Source of the article and date of the article.
3. Why is this an example of this principle?
4. What is your opinion of this?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Include the link or upload
2. Put title of the article, Source of the article and date of the article.
3. Why is this an example of this principle?
4. What is your opinion of this?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Include the link or upload
2. Put title of the article, Source of the article and date of the article.
3. Why is this an example of the executive branch using its powers?
4. What is your opinion of this?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Include the link in the LINK SPOT!!
2. Put title of the article, Source of the article and date of the article.
3. Why is this an example of the Legislative branch using its powers?
4. What is your opinion of this?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Include the link or upload
2. Put title of the article, Source of the article and date of the article.
3. Why is this an example of this principle?
4. What is your opinion of this?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Include the link or upload
2. Put title of the article, Source of the article and date of the article.
3. Why is this an example of this principle?
4. What is your opinion of this?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Include the link or upload
2. Put title of the article, Source of the article and date of the article.
3. Why is this an example of this principle?
4. What is your opinion of this?

# data[].attributes.headline
A Single Senator Dashes Hopes for Latino and Women’s Museums — For Now- New York Times-12/7/2020

# data[].attributes.subject
A Single Senator Dashes Hopes for Latino and Women’s Museums — For Now- New York Times-12/7/2020

# data[].attributes.body
3. It shows the senate stopping a bill from being passed even thought the HOR passed it.

4. I think...because...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, blocked the creation of Smithsonian museums honoring women and Latinos, warning they would worsen societal divides.

Senator Mike Lee of Utah, right, quickly made his objections to the museums known on broad philosophical grounds. Credit... Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

For more than two decades, Latinos and their allies in Congress have been fighting to approve the creation of a National Museum of the American Latino in Washington. The push to create a national women's history museum has taken about as long.

There have been studies and commissions, and this year, bipartisan bills authorizing their creation under the Smithsonian umbrella passed the House for the first time by overwhelming margins.

So on Thursday night, as their congressional term dwindles to just days, Republican and Democratic senators gathered on the Senate floor in hopes of capturing overwhelming support to push both over the finish line. Instead, their attempt set off a rare and tense debate in the halls of Congress - over what the nation's museums stand for and the role of ethnic and gender identity in American life.

In the end, the objections of a single senator out of 100, Mike Lee of Utah, were enough to stop both measures and ensure that for now, their proponents will keep waiting. In a week where lawmakers have struggled, once more, to find agreement on stimulus money to help suffering Americans and small businesses, it was a fitting punctuation mark for an institution gripped with paralysis.

The dispute began shortly before dinnertime when Senators John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, and Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, tried to advance the legislation setting up the Latino museum on the National Mall. They lauded the history and contributions of 60 million Americans, and painted the creation of a museum as a proper and symbolically significant recognition in the nation's capital of a diverse segment of Americans.

Mr. Lee, a conservative with libertarian leanings who often finds himself at odds with his colleagues and does not bend, quickly made his disapproval known on broad philosophical grounds.

"My objection to the creation of a new Smithsonian museum or series of museums based on group identity - what Theodore Roosevelt called hyphenated Americanism - is not a matter of budgetary or legislative technicalities," Mr. Lee said. "It's a matter of national unity and cultural inclusion."

Because his colleagues were trying to pass the bill by unanimous consent, a practice reserved for noncontroversial measures that speeds up the normal legislative process, his reservations alone were enough to block it.

Mr. Lee argued that creating the museums would drive wedges among Americans. He conjured dire scenes of societal strife.

"The so-called critical theory undergirding this movement does not celebrate diversity; it weaponizes diversity," he said. "It sharpens all those hyphens into so many knives and daggers. It has turned our college campuses into grievance pageants and loose Orwellian mobs to cancel anyone daring to express an original thought."

Addressing Mr. Menendez, he said that the history of Latinos and women should be a part of existing Smithsonian museums, and because those topics were not adequately represented there, that should be Congress's focus, not building new institutions.

Mr. Menendez, fuming, was far from convinced.

"I'm sorry," he said. "Sixty million Latinos in this country are watching tonight because this is a much-expected moment. Univision, Telemundo, affiliates across the country, national organizations and others have been waiting for this moment - a moment that everybody in the Congress of the United States agrees to, except for one colleague."

He argued that Latinos were just as entitled to their own cultural institution as African-Americans and Native Americans, to whom Smithsonian museums have been dedicated in recent years. When Mr. Lee said those groups had had their stories "virtually erased" by the government that sought to enslave or eradicate them, giving them a unique claim to dedicated federal facilities, Mr. Menendez said Latinos, too, had been "systemically excluded."

Mr. Lee is not the first to raise concerns about the Smithsonian being fractured into multiple identity-based museums. That concern, along with budgetary ones, has been one of the main points of opposition to a Latino museum in recent years amid extensive lobbying campaigns in its favor.

But Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who tried to pass the bill creating a women's history museum, lamented that "it seems wrong" for a single senator to subvert a clear majority that favored the institutions.

"Surely in a year where we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage, this is the time, this is the moment to finally pass the legislation unanimously recommended by an independent commission to establish an American women's history museum in our nation's capital," Ms. Collins said. "I regret that will not occur this evening, but we will not give up the fight."

Senators in favor of the museums could still push to have them included in a must-pass year-end spending package. But with only days remaining in the congressional session, it was unclear whether they would succeed.

Proponents of the museums had already overcome another last-minute hurdle put up this week by Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, who said she supported their creation but wanted changes to how museum sites on the National Mall would be selected.

The effort to establish a museum dedicated to Latinos traces back to the early 1990s, when an institutional report concluded that the Smithsonian "displays a pattern of willful neglect" toward Latinos. The institution's leaders tried to change that, establishing the Smithsonian Latino Center. In 2008, Congress authorized a commission that ultimately recommended the creation of a 310,000-square-foot museum on the National Mall to function like the African-American museum.

The road for the women's history museum has been nearly as long. Ms. Collins noted on Thursday that she had introduced a bill in 2003, along with Ms. Murkowski and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, to create one. Congress established a commission in 2014 to study the issue, and it also recommended building a full American Museum of Women's History at a prominent location in Washington, if not on the National Mall.

Even if Congress approved the museums, it would likely take about another decade to open their doors. Lawmakers would still have to allocate funds to supplement private fund-raising to begin building collections and physical structures for both.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Single Senator Dashes Hopes for Latino and Women's Museums - For Now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, blocked the creation of Smithsonian museums honoring women and Latinos, warning they would worsen societal divides. For more than two decades, Latinos and their allies in Congress have been fighting to approve the creation of a National Museum of the American Latino in Washington.

# data[].attributes.headline
Republican Senator (And Medical Doctor) On Legislative Response To Coronavirus March 16, 2020 By:NPR Kera

# data[].attributes.subject
Republican Senator (And Medical Doctor) On Legislative Response To Coronavirus March 16, 2020 By:NPR Kera

# data[].attributes.body
3. The house and senate gave 8 billion emergency bill to help everyone in the pandemic.
4. This is smart because people need money to survive in the world so with all the jobs being taken it only makes sense to give money to people in need.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to The NPR Politics Podcast podcast

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly speaks with Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La. and a physician, about congressional efforts to address the COVID-19 pandemic.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

What exactly is Congress doing to respond to the coronavirus pandemic? There is the $8-plus billion (ph) emergency bill that was signed into law in March 6. There is a separate, potentially huge stimulus package that both House and Senate leaders say they're working on that could include, among other items, tens of billions in bailouts for the airline industry. And then, right now, there's the package the House already passed that the Senate is due to vote on - a package that includes free coronavirus testing for all; also includes two weeks paid sick leave, but millions of workers won't be covered. We speak now with one of the senators who will be voting on it, Louisiana Republican Bill Cassidy.

Senator, welcome to All Things Considered.

BILL CASSIDY: Thank you, Mary Louise.

KELLY: So I know there are some technical fixes coming from the House side that y'all are waiting on, but can you give me a ballpark? When do you expect the Senate to vote? And how do you expect you'll be voting?

CASSIDY: Well, we don't know the final package. It will be Wednesday or Thursday. Of course, I am all about, how do we protect the American society, the family, the individual and the employers from what could be catastrophic for them? And so, of course, I want to read the legislation. But, of course, I'm inclined to vote for something, even if it has a couple of warts on it, because we have to protect both individuals and their employers. And we need to have an economy that starts going once more after we control the COVID-19 outbreak, if you will, so we'll see.

KELLY: Yeah, a lot of different factors in play here - this issue that I mentioned, that this legislation would provide two weeks paid sick leave - but a whole lot of people wouldn't get that, people who work for really big companies, for example. If you can't keep everybody who's sick at home, does that really go about fixing this and keeping the spread of the virus as low as you can keep it?

CASSIDY: Well, of course, we'll have discussions about that this week. Let me just say this. The intent is that Americans are taken care of. That's the intent. And so if anyone thinks there's a kind of conspiracy that we're not going to take care of one group versus another, that is not the intent. Big employers typically have pretty generous paid sick leave. And so I think part of the rationale is that folks over 500 employees have these benefit programs of one sort or another that can address this issue. We also have to make sure...

KELLY: Doesn't this also apply to employers who are employing fewer than 50 people? They might also be left out.

CASSIDY: So the fewer than 50 is kind of a standard exception, recognizing that such folks typically or oftentimes have very tight cash flow. But, again, we're going to try and find solutions for those groups too. This is not a conspiracy to leave somebody out. It is a - tried to have a consideration so that the job is there when this is all over. If you have somebody with a tight cash flow, you put them out of business, you've not done anybody a favor. If we can find a way to keep them in business and help somebody stay at home, that's what we're seeking.

KELLY: May I ask about the timing and the urgency to this? You're talking about voting Wednesday or Thursday and trying to find solutions, and I know there's no easy fix here. But if the point is to keep the virus from spreading and keep sick people at home, doesn't every hour count?

CASSIDY: Well, you can look at this kind of as, one, every hour does count, simply put. That said right now, if in a country of 350 million people not that many people have been diagnosed - and there are a couple of communities where there has been broader exposure. Louisiana, for example, I think - just a perspective. We're third per capita in the nation in terms of people who've been diagnosed, but we have 136 total cases so far. So out of roughly 3.5 million people, we have 136 total cases. We know there's a lot more, but we just don't know who they are yet. And so I think, hopefully, this becomes available just as testing shows how many people should be staying home.

KELLY: And understanding that you need to see the full legislation and read it all through, there is bipartisan support for this. I mean, if you had to put money on it, you think this is going to pass this week?

CASSIDY: Yes, I think it's going to pass. Again, this is not going to be a perfect piece of legislation, and it's not going to be the last piece of legislation. But I can tell you that people in Washington want to make sure that people in the United States of America end up with this as both having physical health as well as financial health. And that is the goal, even if we're going to have some fits and starts getting there. We are in this together.

KELLY: That is Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, speaking with us there from Capitol Hill.

Senator, thank you.

CASSIDY: Thank you, Mary Louise.

Copyright © 2020 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Republican Senator (And Medical Doctor) On Legislative Response To Coronavirus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
subscribe to The NPR Politics Podcast podcast NPR's Mary Louise Kelly speaks with Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La. and a physician, about congressional efforts to address the COVID-19 pandemic. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: What exactly is Congress doing to respond to the coronavirus pandemic?

# data[].attributes.headline
US carries out rare execution during presidential transition Abc news-12/10/2020

# data[].attributes.subject
US carries out rare execution during presidential transition Abc news-12/10/2020

# data[].attributes.body
3. Because it shows the president enforcing his rules to execute someone?
4. My opinion is that the person being executed has done something really bad but his life shouldn't be taken.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TERRE HAUTE, Ind. -- The Trump administration on Thursday carried out its ninth federal execution of the year and the first during a presidential lame-duck period in 130 years, putting to death a Texas street-gang member for his role in the slayings of a religious couple from Iowa more than two decades ago.

Four more federal executions, including one Friday, are planned in the weeks before President-elect Joe Biden 's inauguration.

The case of Brandon Bernard, who received a lethal injection of phenobarbital inside a death chamber at a U.S. prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, was a rare execution of a person who was in his teens when his crime was committed.

Several high-profile figures, including reality TV star Kim Kardashian West, had appealed to President Donald Trump to commute Bernard's sentence to life in prison.

With witnesses looking on from behind a glass barrier, the 40-year-old Bernard was pronounced dead at 9:27 p.m. Eastern time.

Bernard directed his last words to the family of the couple he killed, speaking with striking calm for someone who knew he was about to die. "I'm sorry," he said, lifting his head and looking at the witness-room windows. "That's the only words that I can say that completely capture how I feel now and how I felt that day."

As he spoke before he died, Bernard showed no outward signs of fear, distress or apprehension, speaking lucidly and naturally as witnesses looked on behind a glass barrier. Speaking for more than three minutes, Bernard said he had been waiting for this chance to say he was sorry - not only to the victims' family, but also for the pain he caused his own family. Earlier, he said about his role in the killing, "I wish I could take it all back, but I can't."

Bernard was 18 when he and four other teenagers abducted and robbed Todd and Stacie Bagley on their way from a Sunday service in Killeen, Texas. Federal executions were resumed by Trump in July after a 17-year hiatus despite coronavirus outbreak in U.S. prisons.

Todd Bagley's mother, Georgia, spoke to reporters within 30 minutes of the execution, saying she wanted to thank Trump, Attorney General William Barr and others at the Justice Department for bringing the family some closure. She became emotional when she spoke about the apologies from Bernard before he died and from an accomplice, Christopher Vialva, who was executed in September. "The apology and remorse ... helped very much heal my heart," she said, beginning to cry and then recomposing herself. "I can very much say: I forgive them."

Alfred Bourgeois, a 56-year-old Louisiana truck driver, is set to die Friday for killing his 2-year-old daughter by repeatedly slamming her head into a truck's windows and dashboard. Bourgeois' lawyers alleged he was intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for the death penalty, but several courts said evidence didn't support that claim.

Before Bernard's execution, Kardashian West tweeted that she'd spoken to him earlier: "Hardest call I've ever had. Brandon, selfless as always, was focused on his family and making sure they are ok. He told me not to cry because our fight isn't over."

Just before the execution was scheduled, Bernard's lawyers filed papers with the Supreme Court seeking to halt the execution, but the high court denied the request, clearing the way for the execution to proceed.

Bernard had been crocheting in prison and even launched a death-row crocheting group in which inmates have shared patterns for making sweaters, blankets and hats, said Ashley Kincaid Eve, an anti-death penalty activist.

Federal executions during a presidential transfer of power also are rare, especially during a transition from a death-penalty proponent to a president-elect like Biden opposed to capital punishment. The last time executions occurred in a lame-duck period was during the presidency of Grover Cleveland in the 1890s.

Defense attorneys have argued in court and in a petition for clemency from Trump that Bernard was a low-ranking, subservient member of the group. They say both Bagleys were likely dead before Bernard doused their car with lighter fluid and set it on fire, a claim that conflicts with government testimony at trial. Bernard, they say, had repeatedly expressed remorse.

The case prompted calls for Trump to intervene, including from one prosecutor at his 2000 trial who now says racial bias may have influenced the nearly all-white jury's imposition of a death sentence against Bernard, who is Black. Several jurors have also since said publicly that they regret not opting for life in prison instead.

The Justice Department refused to delay Thursday's execution of Bernard, another inmate Friday and three more in January, even after eight officials who participated in an execution last month tested positive for the coronavirus. The eight federal executions in 2020 already is more than in the previous 56 years combined.

One of Bernard's co-defendants, Vialva, was executed in September. Prosecutors said Vialva, the oldest of the teens at 19, was the ringleader who shot the Bagleys, as they lay in the trunk before Bernard set the car on fire.

The teenagers approached the Bagleys in the afternoon on June 21, 1999, and asked them for a lift after they stopped at a convenience store - planning all along to rob the couple. After the Bagleys agreed, Vialva pulled a gun and forced them into the trunk.

The Bagleys, both of whom were in their 20s, spoke through an opening in the back seat and urged their kidnappers to accept Jesus as they drove around for hours trying to use the Bagleys' ATM cards. After the teens pulled to the side of the road, Vialva walked to the back and shot the Bagleys in the head.

The central question in the decision to sentence Bernard to death was whether Vialva's gunshots or the fire set by Bernard killed the Bagleys.

Trial evidence showed Todd Bagley likely died instantly. But a government expert said Stacie Bagley had soot in her airway, indicating smoke inhalation and not the gunshot killed her. Defense attorneys have said that assertion wasn't proven. They've also said Bernard believed both Bagleys were dead and that he feared the consequences of refusing the order of the higher ranking Vialva to burn the car to destroy evidence.

The first series of federal executions over the summer were of white men, which critics said seemed calculated to make them less controversial amid summer protests over racial discrimination. Four of the five inmates set to die before Biden's Jan. 20 inauguration are Black men. The fifth is a white woman who would be the first female inmate executed by the federal government in nearly six decades.

----

Follow Michael Tarm on Twitter at https://twitter.com/mtarm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US carries out rare execution during presidential transition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TERRE HAUTE, Ind. -- The Trump administration on Thursday carried out its ninth federal execution of the year and the first during a presidential lame-duck period in 130 years, putting to death a Texas street-gang member for his role in the slayings of a religious couple from Iowa more than two decades ago.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Include the link or upload
2. Put title of the article, Source of the article and date of the article.
3. Why is this an example of the executive branch using its powers? 
4. What is your opinion of this? 

# data[].attributes.headline
Georgia Republicans push back as Trump calls for a special legislative session      |December 7th, 2020|    - New York Times - 

# data[].attributes.subject
Georgia Republicans push back as Trump calls for a special legislative session      |December 7th, 2020|    - New York Times - 

# data[].attributes.body
Trump still continues saying that the Election is fraud. However he attended a session in Georgia with his Republican supporters to back Senators just to rant about his Grievances and kept saying that the vote outcome is not final. So the executive branch is currently still debating if they should somehow help Trump or not.

I really honestly think Trump supporters and  senate are really tired of him trying to make excuses and see him this way... Especially that THE ELECTION IS ALREEADY OVER.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Officials in Georgia pushed back on Sunday against President Trump as he continued repeating baseless allegations questioning the integrity of the election and called for a special session of the State Legislature with the aim of overturning his loss.

Republican state officials defended the election results, noting that the outcome had withstood multiple recounts, and argued that the president was sowing division within the party and suspicion over the electoral process.

"The mountains of misinformation are not helping the process; they are only hurting it," Georgia's Republican lieutenant governor, Geoff Duncan, said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday, adding: "I voted for President Trump. I campaigned for him. And, unfortunately, he did not win the state of Georgia."

The dispute over the election has inflamed a rift among Republicans as the president has castigated state officials in his own party. Republican officials have warned that the discord could have damaging consequences as the state's incumbent Republican senators have been forced into runoff races against Democrats that will ultimately determine whether the party maintains its control of the Senate.

Mr. Trump traveled to Georgia for a rally on Saturday to mobilize his supporters to back Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in the January runoff. But the president mostly used the stage to air his grievances over the election and lash out at Gov. Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's secretary of state.

Mr. Trump lost the state by just under 12,000 votes to President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., who won the White House with 306 electoral votes and was the first Democratic presidential candidate to win Georgia since 1992.

Still, Mr. Trump has kept contending that the outcome was not final. On Saturday, he pushed for Mr. Kemp to call for a special session of the Legislature, during which lawmakers could appoint electors who would override the popular vote and hand Mr. Trump a victory for the state.

Mr. Raffensperger said on ABC's "This Week" that holding a special session would amount to "nullifying the will of the people."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Georgia Republicans push back as Trump calls for a special legislative session.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Officials in Georgia pushed back on Sunday against President Trump as he continued repeating baseless allegations questioning the integrity of the election and called for a special session of the State Legislature with the aim of overturning his loss.

# data[].attributes.body
Senate Rejects Attempted Blockade of Weapons Sale to U.A.E. Source:The New York times Date:12/9/20

3. This is an example of the legislative branch using its powers because this senate used his great powers to not allow this to pass through. The senate's have the last say before it is final.
4. I think what this senate did was Amazing. He used his powers to not allow guns to go somewhere it didn't need to go. This is amazing that he is using his powers in a good way and is protecting us in this way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Senate endorsed the Trump administration's last-minute push to sell a $23 billion arms package including armed drones and stealth fighter jets to the Emirati military.

The intended $23 billion sale includes 50 F-35 jets in a deal championed by Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law. Credit... Getty Images

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Wednesday rejected efforts to block the sale of munitions worth $23 billion to the United Arab Emirates, overcoming concerns about sending weapons to Gulf Arab nations.

The pair of votes, forced by a bipartisan group of senators, highlighted growing unease in Congress with sending large tranches of sophisticated weapons that could sharply alter the military balance to a region facing simmering proxy wars. But in a victory for President Trump, the majority voted against the blockade, endorsing his last-minute push to send armed drones and stealth fighter jets to the Emirati military and arguing that bolstering the country's arsenal would help nations allied against Iran.

"This would continue the 20 years of growth in our relationship, working side by side against common concerns and common enemies," Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, said. "The U.A.E. has consistently been willing to stand with us in at least six long-term deployments. They come, they stay, they are side by side with us in the field."

The administration formally notified Congress last month of the intended $23 billion sale, a deal that included up to 50 F-35 jets, as many as 18 Reaper drones and other precision weapons. That push, championed by Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, came as he and other administration officials completed the Abraham accord, a joint agreement in which the United Arab Emirates became the third Arab nation to recognize Israel.

A vote to block the sale of F-35 jets failed 47 to 49, and a separate vote to block the sale of the drones failed 46 to 50, with Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, both Democrats, voting in favor of the drone package. Mr. Kelly opposed the F-35 sale.

Administration officials have insisted that the arms sale - particularly the transfer of the coveted F-35 fighter jets - is not a direct reward for the Emirates' recognition of Israel. But they have acknowledged that it is linked to the broader diplomatic initiative, and Mr. Kushner briefed Senate Republicans on Tuesday on his work with the Emiratis, according to a person familiar with the discussion.

Emirati diplomats, led by the United Arab Emirates' ambassador, Yousef al-Otaiba, lobbied senators in the days leading up to the vote, running a rapid-response Twitter feed as lawmakers debated the provision and arguing that the sale "is critical to protecting our shared interests against common adversaries," referencing Iran.

"The UAE has purchased & operated some of the most advanced US defense systems including F-16s, Patriot & THAAD. @usairforce F-35 squadrons are based in the UAE," embassy officials wrote. "The UAE has never compromised or shared this technology with an adversary or without US knowledge & approval."

Democrats had accused Trump administration officials of rushing the sales through in the final months of Mr. Trump's term, and pointed to reports indicating the Emirates had previously misused American-made weapons.

"There is no doubt that the U.A.E.'s recent normalization agreement with Israel is a big deal, and there is a level of arms transfer that could make sense for an important partner in the region," said Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut and one of the sponsors of the legislation to block the sales. "But the Emiratis' recent behavior in Yemen and Libya, where U.S. weapons were misused and given to radical militias, on top of their active and growing defense relationships with China and Russia, should give everyone pause."

Congressional efforts to block arms sales are rarely successful. After the administration last year circumvented Capitol Hill to allow the sale of billions of dollars of munitions to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, lawmakers tried to derail the deal but were unable to override the president's veto.

Still, the sale, which experts believe could take six to eight years to deliver, could be reversed by the incoming Biden administration. Several advisers to President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. are wary of sending munitions to the Gulf Arab nations because of the Saudi-led war in Yemen, which has created the world's greatest humanitarian disaster.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Senate Rejects Attempted Blockade of Weapons Sale to U.A.E.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Senate endorsed the Trump administration's last-minute push to sell a $23 billion arms package including armed drones and stealth fighter jets to the Emirati military. WASHINGTON - The Senate on Wednesday rejected efforts to block the sale of munitions worth $23 billion to the United Arab Emirates, overcoming concerns about sending weapons to Gulf Arab nations.

# data[].attributes.headline
In Farewell Speech, Udall Says Senate Has Become ‘Graveyard for Progress’

# data[].attributes.subject
In Farewell Speech, Udall Says Senate Has Become ‘Graveyard for Progress’

# data[].attributes.body
2. Put title of the article, Source of the article and date of the article.
3. The Senate has to do with the Legislative branch, so it's using the Legislative's power.
4. What is your opinion of this?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Senator Tom Udall, a retiring New Mexico Democrat, used his parting speech as a call to kill the legislative filibuster, arguing that it had caused paralysis and prevented action on big issues.

Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, is the second member in two weeks to use his farewell speech to express disgust at the current state of the Senate. Credit... Senate Television, via Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Senator Tom Udall urged his colleagues on Tuesday to kill the legislative filibuster that he said had helped turn the Senate into a "graveyard for progress," using his farewell speech to point up a state of dysfunction in Congress that had become painfully obvious to most everyone listening to him.

"I'm not the first to say this in a farewell address, and I won't be the last, but the Senate is broken," Mr. Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, said on Tuesday in what is likely his final speech after 12 years in the deeply divided institution.

"The Senate is broken," he repeated for emphasis.

For months, Americans have watched in anger as Congress remained mired in partisan paralysis over more pandemic relief, allowing unemployment benefits to lapse as many suffer from joblessness. Fewer people approve of the job lawmakers are doing in Washington than at almost any time in recent history. And the government watchdog group Common Cause ranked the current Congress the "least productive in history," noting that only about 1 percent of bills introduced became law.

Mr. Udall emphasized this dysfunctional state of affairs on the floor, calling on senators to gut the legislative filibuster - which effectively requires a 60-vote supermajority to advance any major legislation - and change a culture he said valued partisanship over the country's best interests.

Mr. Udall was the second senator in two weeks to use his farewell speech to express disgust at the current state of the chamber under the leadership of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, and his Democratic counterpart, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. The pair often use the better part of their speeches at the beginning of floor sessions taking jabs at other, while few bipartisan deals are struck.

Mr. McConnell's friend Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, who is retiring after 18 years, described the Senate last week as " like joining the Grand Ole Opry and not being able to sing."

"It's a real waste of talent," Mr. Alexander said.

In recent months, Congress has failed to pass an infrastructure package, notwithstanding the widespread support for such a plan, or unite around proposals for police changes, despite bills offered by both parties with a nation gripped by unrest after police killings of unarmed Black Americans. The logjam over a new stimulus package - with negotiators intent on playing hardball rather than compromise - has been a constant source of frustration.

In recent weeks, a bipartisan group of senators has tried to change the dynamic and create a new more centrist power center in Washington, putting forward a compromise stimulus plan to try to break the impasse. And there were glimmers of momentum on Tuesday after months of stalemate as lawmakers and the White House redoubled efforts to get something done before the holidays.

But the general lack of legislating has raised serious questions about whether Congress can still function, and whether President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. will be able to enact any of his policy agenda.

Mr. Udall, a former New Mexico attorney general and a member of a storied political family from the West, said he laid much of the blame for the state of the Senate on the filibuster, while others, like Mr. Alexander, argue that it is merely the culture of the place that needs to change, not the rules.

In an interview with The New York Times last week, Mr. Udall detailed why he saw the 60-vote threshold as an impediment to coming up with answers for the existential problems of the moment, such as climate change.

"The filibuster came to be through historical accident," he said on the Senate floor Tuesday. "The reality of the filibuster is paralysis - a deep paralysis."

Proponents of eliminating the filibuster have proposed changing Senate rules so legislation could be muscled through with a simple majority vote of 51. Should Democrats win both of the two Senate seats up for grabs in January runoff elections in Georgia - thereby winning control of the chamber - ending the legislative filibuster would allow Mr. Biden to circumvent Republican opposition and push through his policy priorities.

Under current rules, the majority leader unilaterally chooses which measures advance to the floor for a vote, a process that has resulted in the confirmation of more than 200 conservative judges nominated by President Trump while more than 400 bills, including many progressive proposals from the House, languish.

Mr. Udall also lamented the state of American politics, calling the country's campaign finance system "out of control."

"Secret money floods campaigns to buy influence, instead of letting the voters speak," he said. "Voting rights are under attack. We can do our best to be good people in a system like that, but it's no surprise that America's faith in government is declining. These structures are anti-democratic. They reward extremism. They punish compromise."

After Mr. Udall was finished speaking, Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, said the Senate would be wise to listen to his advice. Mr. Merkley, like Mr. Udall, said he favored keeping a "talking filibuster" in which a senator can slow down legislation he or she opposes, but must do so by actually continuing to talk on the floor.

Mr. Udall "cares about the function of this body and has shared with us idea after idea about how we might make it work better - ideas we should still work to consider in the months and years ahead," Mr. Merkley said.

Not long after Mr. Udall finished his remarks, Mr. McConnell and Mr. Schumer lashed out at each other over the stimulus talks. Mr. McConnell called Democrats "a wholly owned subsidiary of the plaintiff's bar," while Mr. Schumer accused Mr. McConnell of "sabotaging good-faith, bipartisan negotiations."

Without a deal, unemployment benefits for freelance workers and the long-term unemployed and protections against evictions are set to expire after Christmas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In Farewell Speech, Udall Says Senate Has Become 'Graveyard for Progress'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Senator Tom Udall, a retiring New Mexico Democrat, used his parting speech as a call to kill the legislative filibuster, arguing that it had caused paralysis and prevented action on big issues.

# data[].attributes.headline
House Approves One-Week Funding Extension as Stimulus Talks Continue. -New York Times- 12/9/2020

# data[].attributes.subject
House Approves One-Week Funding Extension as Stimulus Talks Continue. -New York Times- 12/9/2020

# data[].attributes.body
3. Because it involves Congress using their power to buy an additional week worth's of pandemic aid.
4. I'm a bit mixed on this. I totally approve of funding for pandemic aid, but I think congress needs to work to get the Stimulus checks out, especially because we are nearing the end of the year.

# data[].attributes.headline
Biden Names Two Obama White House Veterans to New Roles                  12/10/20

# data[].attributes.subject
Biden Names Two Obama White House Veterans to New Roles                  12/10/20

# data[].attributes.body
It shows how the Executive Branch and The president have the power to add and fire people off of his Cabinet.

My opinion on this topic is that I believe that he made a good choice and should have the power to add people to help him execute his duties as President.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Susan Rice, who was President Barack Obama's national security adviser, will lead the Domestic Policy Council. Denis McDonough, Mr. Obama's chief of staff, was nominated secretary of veterans affairs.

Susan Rice, a lifelong national security professional, is being placed in a top domestic policy job. Credit... Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

WASHINGTON - President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. named two senior officials from the Obama White House to key jobs on Thursday, putting Susan Rice, a former national security adviser, in charge of his Domestic Policy Council and nominating President Barack Obama's chief of staff, Denis McDonough, to be secretary of veterans affairs.

Both choices came as surprises, particularly the decision to place a lifelong national security professional like Ms. Rice into a top domestic policy job. At the same time, they reflect Mr. Biden's desire to populate the upper levels of his incoming administration with people he knows well, and with whom he has worked closely in the past.

The appointment of Ms. Rice also helps Mr. Biden meet his commitment to diversity by installing a Black woman in a White House post with major influence over a wide range of federal policies, from education to health care to racial equity.

Like Ms. Rice, Mr. McDonough, who if confirmed will take over the Department of Veterans Affairs, a politically important agency long known for dysfunction and scandal, has a national security background. He served as a foreign policy aide on Capitol Hill and then as President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser before becoming his chief of staff.

During the Obama administration, both Mr. McDonough and Ms. Rice spent countless hours with Mr. Biden, then the vice president, in the Oval Office and the Situation Room. People familiar with their selection said the president-elect sees them both as tenacious managers with a deep understanding of the federal bureaucracy.

Ms. Rice's friendship with Mr. Biden led to speculation that he would choose her as his running mate, but he picked Senator Kamala Harris of California instead.

Though Mr. McDonough's selection was unexpected, former colleagues said he took an intense interest in military families during the Obama administration, as well as the notorious case backlog at the sprawling department that manages health care and other benefits for veterans. He also traveled regularly to combat zones, and often visited with wounded soldiers at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Mr. McDonough's wife, Kari, is the co-founder and president of an organization that assists veterans reintegrating into their communities.

"If you know Denis McDonough, there is nothing at all surprising about the idea that the V.A. would literally be the guy's dream government position," said Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser in the Obama White House. "He's animated by veterans' issues in a way that he's not animated by anything else, including national security issues."

Mr. Rhodes recalled many instances when he would "round a turn in the West Wing at like 9 p.m. on a Tuesday and the guy was giving a tour to 10 wounded warriors."

Mr. McDonough, 51, would be just the second leader of the Department of Veterans Affairs since it supplanted the Veterans Administration in 1989 not to have served in the military. The other was President Trump's first secretary, David Shulkin, whom the Senate confirmed by unanimous consent.

The appointment of Ms. Rice, 56, was an even greater surprise. Many longtime domestic policy experts within the Democratic Party complained privately on Thursday that Mr. Biden had passed over candidates with direct experience on issues like education and the economy.

Image

Denis McDonough has been chosen to take over a politically important agency long known for dysfunction and scandal. Credit... Doug Mills/The New York Times

A graduate of Stanford and a Rhodes scholar, Ms. Rice joined President Bill Clinton's National Security Council staff in 1993 and went on to become an assistant secretary of state for African affairs. She returned to government under Mr. Obama, first as his ambassador to the United Nations and then as national security adviser, a job she held for four years.

After leaving government with the election of Mr. Trump, Ms. Rice became a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times for three years. Her last column for The Times was published on Dec. 1.

She has twice been a finalist for secretary of state, first under Mr. Obama and more recently as Mr. Biden assembled his national security team. But she was twice passed over, in part because of concern over a potentially bloody confirmation fight.

Republicans targeted Ms. Rice for comments she made shortly after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, downplaying terrorism as a motive. In an election year, they turned the attack into a major political issue, singling out her and Hillary Clinton, then the secretary of state. Allies of Ms. Rice said she was the victim of smears and discrimination and noted that congressional inquiries found no wrongdoing on her part.

Ms. Rice's new position does not require Senate confirmation. In a statement announcing her appointment, Mr. Biden's transition team said that she "knows government inside and out and will carry through the president-elect's vision of a newly empowered Domestic Policy Council and turbocharge the effort to build back better."

Established in 1993, the Domestic Policy Council - much like its national security counterpart that Ms. Rice managed - coordinates domestic policymaking across the federal government, with the exception of the many economic matters overseen by the National Economic Council.

Mr. Rhodes said that Ms. Rice had worked extensively as national security adviser on issues that straddled the foreign and domestic realms during the Obama administration, including a flood of migrant families at the southern American border and an Ebola outbreak in Africa. "National security and domestic lines have been blurred," particularly since the advent of the coronavirus, sure to be one of her top priorities, he said.

Melody Barnes, who led the Domestic Policy Council under Mr. Obama, said Ms. Rice had the essential bureaucratic know-how required to run the body effectively and noted that she would be supported by a formidable staff of experts.

"She's an intellectual powerhouse," Ms. Barnes said. "She has extensive government experience and knows how to manage a process, and work with departments and agencies, which is an essential part of the director's job."

Ms. Rice comes from a family of domestic policy enthusiasts. Her mother, Lois Rice, was an education policy expert often called "the mother of the Pell grant" because of her key lobbying role behind the federal college subsidy created in 1965.

A pioneering Black woman in government, Ms. Rice also has a keen issue in racial justice. Ms. Barnes noted that the Domestic Policy Council would play a central role in Mr. Biden's efforts to advance racial equity.

A tour of duty in domestic affairs could also help position Ms. Rice for a future run for office. She recently contemplated a run for Senate in Maine, a state where she has family roots, and was a finalist to become Mr. Biden's vice-presidential running mate.

Like Ms. Rice, Mr. McDonough, a graduate of St. John's University in Minnesota and the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, is known as a demanding, hard-nosed manager impatient with confusion and delay. If confirmed, he will oversee a department whose vast size is matched only by its seemingly intractable problems.

It is the government's second-largest department, with around 375,000 employees and a budget of more than $200 billion that funds a troubled health care system that underwent immense strain after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Biden's hope is that Mr. McDonough can apply the management acumen he developed as chief of staff to making the troubled department more efficient and effective.

During the Obama administration, officials at a Phoenix medical center were found to have manipulated data concerning long wait times for veterans that may have led to patient deaths. That led to the departure of Eric Shinseki, the secretary at the time, and Mr. McDonough helped shepherd legislation to give veterans access to care outside the department's system.

Mr. Rhodes said Mr. McDonough became "obsessed" with cruelly long wait times for health care and made it a top priority when he served as chief of staff.

Mr. Trump put the troubled department at the center of his own political agenda, and pushed hard to expand veterans' access to private care. His most recent secretary, Robert L. Wilkie, shunned traditional veterans organizations and many lawmakers in favor of conservative groups that championed private care, notably Concerned Veterans for America, an advocacy group with ties to the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch.

The department became deeply politicized and faced additional problems caused by an expensive electronic medical records system, the rollout of its expanded community care program and an inspector general's report highly critical of Mr. Wilkie's handling of a reported sexual assault case at a department hospital.

In a statement, Will Fischer, a senior adviser to the liberal veterans' group VoteVets, acknowledged that few had seen Mr. McDonough's selection coming. "Some may say this pick is unexpected and out of left field," he said, but called the choice "a grand slam."

"What the V.A. needs, more than anything, is an experienced manager, with deep depth of knowledge about how the agency works, how it interacts with other agencies and how to quickly build the agency back, even better," he said.

Mr. Biden plans to introduce Mr. McDonough and Ms. Rice at a public event in Wilmington, Del., on Friday afternoon.

Michael D. Shear, Jennifer Steinhauer and Jim Tankersley contributed reporting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biden Names Two Obama White House Veterans to New Roles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Susan Rice, who was President Barack Obama's national security adviser, will lead the Domestic Policy Council. Denis McDonough, Mr. Obama's chief of staff, was nominated secretary of veterans affairs. WASHINGTON - President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.

# data[].attributes.headline
How America Gave Up And how we fight back, NBC news, Dec 10, 2020

# data[].attributes.subject
How America Gave Up And how we fight back, NBC news, Dec 10, 2020

# data[].attributes.body
Directions:
1. Include the link or upload https://www.nbcnews.com/

3. Why is this an example of the Executive branch using its powers? It says A fractured government response meaning that the government rushed in putting some policies and didn't think it through and there were some missing pieces in how to stop the whole thing.
4. What is your opinion of this? I think that the government should have better ideas in executing a good plan to protect us from covid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NBC News - Breaking News & Top Stories - Latest World, US & Local News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Go to NBCNews.com for breaking news, videos, and the latest top stories in world news, business, politics, health and pop culture.

# data[].attributes.headline
Biden tests Congress' desire for norms versus history-making with Pentagon pick- NBC news, Dec.9, 2020

# data[].attributes.subject
Biden tests Congress' desire for norms versus history-making with Pentagon pick- NBC news, Dec.9, 2020

# data[].attributes.body
The Legislative Branch is having to choose a future member of the pentagon and they can either choose a member that will make history or stick with tradition.
My opinion is that they should make him a member of the pentagon to make the government more equal and considering with what is happening now, it's a great time to hire him.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biden tests Congress' desire for norms versus history-making with Pentagon nominee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - President-elect Joe Biden's nomination of Lloyd Austin has set up a tough question for Congress: confirm the first Black secretary of defense or reinforce a 73-year-old law designed to keep recently retired military officers from running the Pentagon. Austin, 67, a four-star general, led the U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Senate Approves Trump’s Pick for FCC-Dec/8/20-The wall street journal

# data[].attributes.subject
Senate Approves Trump’s Pick for FCC-Dec/8/20-The wall street journal

# data[].attributes.body
Because it shows a senator approving trump's pick for ffc.
My opinion is that the senate made a very crucial decision because the republicans won by 3 votes in deciding who the next ffc should be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Trump's nominee to join the Federal Communications Commission was confirmed by the Senate on Tuesday, setting up a possible partisan deadlock at the telecommunications regulator when Democrats take power next year.

The Republican-led Senate voted 49-46 along party lines to approve Nathan Simington for a five-year term on the FCC.

Mr. Simington, a 41-year-old Republican lawyer currently serving in the Trump administration, appears likely to clash with Democrats over issues from "net neutrality" rules to the agency's role in overseeing social-media content moderation under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, has said he is leaving the agency on Jan. 20, President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration day.

That could leave the bipartisan commission with two Democratic and two Republican members, including Mr. Simington. Mr. Biden can immediately designate one of the sitting Democratic commissioners as chair. But the agency's new leader wouldn't hold a 3-2 majority until Mr. Biden names, and the Senate approves, a fifth FCC member-a process that could stretch months if Republicans control the Senate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump's nominee to join the Federal Communications Commission was confirmed by the Senate on Tuesday, setting up a possible partisan deadlock at the telecommunications regulator when Democrats take power next year. The Republican-led Senate voted 49-46 along party lines to approve Nathan Simington for a five-year term on the FCC.

# data[].attributes.headline
House Passes NDAA With Veto-Proof Majority Over Trump’s Objections 12/9/20

# data[].attributes.subject
House Passes NDAA With Veto-Proof Majority Over Trump’s Objections 12/9/20

# data[].attributes.body
This shows the legislative Branches power against the veto the president puts out they got enough votes so he cannot veto the bill.

The Legislative Branch was smart to make this bill veto-proof because it will help make lots of lives better.
News Article

# data[].attributes.headline
Senate Sends Military Bill to Trump’s Desk, Spurning His Veto Threat 

# data[].attributes.subject
Senate Sends Military Bill to Trump’s Desk, Spurning His Veto Threat 

# data[].attributes.body
(The New York Time) Dec. 11, 2020
This article show that the legislative is not overpowering or being overpower by the president. This article show that the senate are determining to pass the bill even though it meant to deliver the first veto that override Trump's presidency.  The congress successfully agreed on passing the military bill for 60 years.

I agreed on the bill because it will make the military a lot better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - The Senate overwhelmingly passed a sweeping military policy bill on Friday that would require that Confederate names be stripped from American military bases, clearing the measure for enactment and sending it to President Trump's desk in defiance of his threats of a veto.

The 84-13 vote to approve the legislation reflected broad bipartisan support for the measure that authorizes pay for American troops and was intended to signal to Mr. Trump that lawmakers, including many Republicans, were determined to pass the critical bill even if it meant potentially delivering the first veto override of his presidency.

The margin surpassed the two-thirds majority needed in both houses to force enactment of the bill over Mr. Trump's objections. The House also met that threshold in passing the measure on Tuesday, raising the prospect of a potential veto showdown during Mr. Trump's final weeks in office.

The scene that played out on the Senate floor on Friday underscored how Republicans, who have been reluctant to challenge the president on any other issue during his four years in office, have been extraordinarily willing to break with Mr. Trump over one of the party's key orthodoxies - projecting military strength.

"I encourage all of us to do what we have to do to get this bill done,"Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told his colleagues in a speech from the floor. "There's no one more deserving in America than our troops that are out there in harm's way, and we're going to make sure we do the right thing for them."

Thirteen senators, split evenly among party lines, voted against the bill, with Republicans supporting Mr. Trump's objections and Democrats chafing at the bill's topline number. Three senators, Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, Mike Rounds, Republican of South Dakota, and Kamala Harris, Democrat of California and the vice president-elect, did not vote.

Congress has succeeded in passing the military bill each year for 60 years. But Mr. Trump has threatened to upend that tradition, pledging since the summer to veto the legislation even as leaders in his own party privately implored him to support it.

Mr. Trump first objected to a provision supported overwhelmingly by lawmakers in both parties in both chambers that would strip the names of Confederate leaders from military bases. In recent weeks, his attention shifted, and he demanded that the bill include an unrelated repeal of a legal shield for social media companies.

That demand, registered late in the legislative process, found little support among lawmakers in either party, who regard shoehorning a major unrelated policy move into defense bill as untenable. They have hoped that strong votes in both chambers would cow Mr. Trump into retreating from his veto threat. But the president has given no indication to date that he will do so.

Included in the legislation are 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.

It would also 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.

The legislation also directly addresses the protests for racial justice spurred over the summer by the killing of Black Americans, including George Floyd, at the hands of the police. It would require all federal officers enforcing crowd control at protests and demonstrations to identify themselves and their agencies. And it contains the bipartisan measure that directs the Pentagon to begin the process of renaming military bases named after Confederate leaders, a provision that Democrats fought to keep in the bill.

If Mr. Trump were to follow through with his threatened veto, the House would be the first to try at an override.

Emily Cochrane contributing reporting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Senate Sends Military Bill to Trump's Desk, Spurning His Veto Threat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - The Senate overwhelmingly passed a sweeping military policy bill on Friday that would require that Confederate names be stripped from American military bases, clearing the measure for enactment and sending it to President Trump's desk in defiance of his threats of a veto.

# data[].attributes.headline
How a Long Island County Fought COVID-19 November 16, 2020 By: New York Times

# data[].attributes.subject
How a Long Island County Fought COVID-19 November 16, 2020 By: New York Times

# data[].attributes.body
3. This shows that the Covid 19 is a problem so they all gathered and discussed about the situation.
4. The enforcement of rules is good for the community because it shows that they should be safe if they follow certain rules that they give.

# data[].attributes.body
Biden Nominates First Black Secretary of Defense Source:The new york times.
Date:December 9,2020
This is an example of the Executive branch because they(biden) are using their powers to hire someone to keep our country safe and it is great that they are finally hiring blacks.
My opinion: I think this is amazing not only because our country is being protected but because finally after hundreds of years we have hired a black man. Everytime something like this happens we get one step closer to ending racism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
new video loaded: Biden Nominates First Black Secretary of Defense

transcript

Biden Nominates First Black Secretary of Defense

President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. formally named on Wednesday Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, a retired four-star Army general, as his choice to lead the Department of Defense. General Austin, who retired from the military four years ago, would need a congressional waiver to serve as Pentagon chief.

"He's loved by the men and women of the armed forces, feared by our adversaries, known and respected by our allies and he shares my deeply held belief in the values of America's alliances." "I understand the important role of the Department of Defense, and the role that it plays in maintaining stability and deterring aggression, and defending and supporting critical alliances around the world, including in Asia-Pacific, in Europe and around the world. And I fervently believe that, as you've said before, sir, that America is strongest when it works with its allies." "We also need to lead the Defense Department into the future, rebuild and renew global alliances and partnerships, and make sure the United States is prepared to address new threats and new challenges from cyber to climate."

Site Information Navigation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video: Biden Nominates First Black Secretary of Defense

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. formally named on Wednesday Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, a retired four-star Army general, as his choice to lead the Department of Defense. General Austin, who retired from the military four years ago, would need a congressional waiver to serve as Pentagon chief.

# data[].attributes.headline
Unveiling economic team, Biden pledges, ‘Help is on the way’, AP NEWS, December 1, 2020

# data[].attributes.subject
Unveiling economic team, Biden pledges, ‘Help is on the way’, AP NEWS, December 1, 2020

# data[].attributes.body
3. Why is this an example of the legislative branch using it powers?  Because Joe Biden says that he has a team to tackle the pandemic and help low income houses and he also says he can build a new American economy which means that he= is going to have to put some new rules and such.
4. What is your opinion of this? I think that if he is staying true to what he says and has a team to help tackle covid that he can change this around for the better of our general well bieng

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) - President-elect Joe Biden on Tuesday introduced top advisers he says will help his administration rebuild an economy hammered by the coronavirus pandemic, declaring, "I know times are tough, but I want you to know that help is on the way."

Biden said he'd chosen a "first-rate team" that is "tested and experienced" to tackle the country's economic crisis. He picked liberal advisers who have long prioritized the nation's workers and government efforts to address economic inequality.

Unemployment remains high as the COVID-19 outbreak widens the gulf between average people and the wealthiest Americans. The virus, which has claimed more than 269,000 lives nationwide, is resurgent across the country amid holiday travel and colder weather sending people indoors.

As he did frequently while campaigning, Biden promised that the U.S. would eventually emerge with an economy that is dramatically reshaped to better stamp out economic inequality.

"From the most unequal economic and job crisis in modern history, we can build a new American economy that works for all Americans, not just some," Biden said as he introduced his choices for some of the government's top economic posts during a speech at a theater in Wilmington, Delaware, where he has led his transition to the presidency.

Tuesday also marked the president-elect's first appearance since breaking two small bones in his right foot while playing with one of his dogs over the weekend. He wore a black walking boot and moved gingerly but tried to keep things light. As he emerged from his motorcade, Biden pointed to his boot and lifted his leg briefly to show it off.

Asked about his foot by reporters, Biden responded only, "Good, thanks for asking."

The injury, while not serious, again intensifies scrutiny on Biden's age, given that he just turned 78 and is the oldest president ever to be in his first term. Still, his team has tried to keep the focus on building out its government and upcoming policy challenges, chief among them the pandemic and the economy.

Biden repeatedly evoked his work as vice president when the Obama administration oversaw the economic recovery following the 2008 financial crisis, noting that many of those on his newly formed economic team worked closely with him then.

Most of his choices will require confirmation from the deeply divided Senate, where some top Republicans have already begun voicing opposition. Biden said he hopes "that we will be able to work across the aisle in good faith, move forward as one country."

Janet Yellen, Biden's nominee for treasury secretary, served as chair of the Federal Reserve from 2014 to 2018, when she placed a greater emphasis than previous Fed chairs on maximizing employment and less focus on price inflation. Biden also named Cecilia Rouse as chair of his Council of Economic Advisers, and Heather Boushey and Jared Bernstein as members of the council.

Yellen called the economic havoc the pandemic has wrought "an American tragedy."

"To the American people: We will be an institution that wakes up every morning thinking about you," Yellen said of the Treasury Department, "Your jobs, your paychecks, your struggles, your hopes, your dignity and your limitless potential."

If confirmed by the Senate, Yellen would be the first woman to serve as treasury secretary, after breaking ground as the first woman to chair the Fed.

"We might have to ask Lin-Manuel Miranda, who wrote a musical about the first secretary of the treasury, Hamilton, to write another musical about the female secretary of the treasury," Biden joked.

Rouse would be the first Black woman to lead the CEA in its 74 years of existence. The president-elect also selected Wally Adeyemo to be Yellen's deputy, which would make him the first Black deputy treasury secretary. Neera Tanden, Biden's pick for director of the Office of Management and Budget, would be the first South Asian American in that job.

Rouse, Tanden and Adeyemo will all require Senate confirmation, and Tanden, in particular, is already drawing heavy Republican criticism.

"Budgets are not abstractions. They are a reflection of our values," Tanden said during Tuesday's event.

All of Biden's picks are outspoken supporters of more government stimulus spending to boost growth - which Biden embraced on the campaign trail - though their proposals could face a difficult reception in Congress, which has stalemated on a new round of economic relief for months.

The prospects for a large-scale deal could hang on the outcome of runoff elections for both Georgia Senate seats. Victories in both would give Democrats control of the chamber - and its agenda -- by the slimmest of margins, but Republican victories will quickly test Biden and his team's ability to negotiate across the aisle to deliver on their promised relief for Americans.

As he has in recent weeks, Biden repeated calls for Congress to pass immediate pandemic relief funding even before he takes office.

"Right now, the full Congress should come together and pass a robust package for relief," he said. But Biden added that any package passed during the lame-duck session before the end of the year is "likely to be at best just a start" and said his transition team is "already working on what I'll put forward in the next Congress to address the multiple crises we're facing."

In the meantime, grim economic news is piling up. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said Monday that the pace of improvement in the economy has moderated in recent months with future prospects remaining "extraordinarily uncertain."

And Steven Mnuchin, President Donald Trump's treasury secretary, announced last month that, over the objections of the Fed, he would not grant extensions for five lending programs being operated jointly by the Fed and the Treasury Department that are scheduled to expire on Dec. 31 - including backstops for corporate and municipal debt and the purchase of loans for small businesses and nonprofits.

___

Weissert reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Christopher Rugaber, Aamer Madhani and Martin Crutsinger contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unveiling economic team, Biden pledges, 'Help is on the way'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) - President-elect Joe Biden on Tuesday introduced top advisers he says will help his administration rebuild an economy hammered by the coronavirus pandemic, declaring, "I know times are tough, but I want you to know that help is on the way."

# data[].attributes.headline
WH coronavirus testing czar says end of pandemic 'in sight' with 'rapid' vaccination rollout set to start. -Fox News- 12/11/2020

# data[].attributes.subject
WH coronavirus testing czar says end of pandemic 'in sight' with 'rapid' vaccination rollout set to start. -Fox News- 12/11/2020

# data[].attributes.body
3. Because the Whitehouse Coronavirus testing czar is getting ready to start testing people for the Vaccine, as soon as next week.
4. I think if they are able to start giving people the Vaccine, they need to give Doctor's, and Scientists, and Nurse's the vaccine first, before everybody else. Nevertheless, the sooner the better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The end of the coronavirus pandemic is finally within sight, White House's coronavirus testing czar Adm. Brett Giroir told " Fox & Friends" Friday.

"But we still have a lot of work to do until most people get vaccinated and the pandemic goes away," said Giroir, the assistant secretary for Health and Human Services.

Reacting to groundbreaking news that the Food and Drug Administration is "rapidly working" to finalize Pfizer coronavirus vaccine approval, with Moderna expected to follow, Giroir predicts at least 20 million people could be vaccinated during December, 30 million in January, and another 50 million in February.
HOW DO THE MODERNA AND PFIZER CORONAVIRUS VACCINES COMPARE?
"We are in the process of truly what we call microplanning with the states, but the specific vaccine allocation is up to the governors," he said.

In phase one of distribution, an estimated 21 million health care workers, including nurses and doctors, are expected to receive the vaccine, along with an estimated three million long-term care facility residents, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Because of the cold-storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine, Gioir said it will most likely be given to health care institutions, while the Moderna vaccine will be able to be distributed on a wider scale.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
"We are very confident that by the May-June time period that any American that wants a vaccine will have a vaccine available. So this is going to be extremely rapid," Giroir explained.

HHS Secretary Alex Azar said there could be Pfizer vaccinations beginning as early as Monday.
Fox News' Kayla Rivas contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WH coronavirus testing czar says end of pandemic 'in sight' with 'rapid' vaccination rollout set to start

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The end of the coronavirus pandemic is finally within sight, White House's coronavirus testing czar Adm. Brett Giroir told " Fox & Friends" Friday. "But we still have a lot of work to do until most people get vaccinated and the pandemic goes away," said Giroir, the assistant secretary for Health and Human Services.

# data[].attributes.headline
N.C.A.A. Crises shows how Biden Surgeon General Pick Navigated the Pandemic               | December 10th, 2020 | - New York Times -

# data[].attributes.subject
N.C.A.A. Crises shows how Biden Surgeon General Pick Navigated the Pandemic               | December 10th, 2020 | - New York Times -

# data[].attributes.body
When this Coronavirus was in the U.S., this Surgeon that also spoke for Biden helped the society notify and warned this Covid wave could be worse. So he spoke for Biden and got this passed as a rule or regulation to inform people the basic safety and how to prevent it. A new protocol was made.

I really agree with this man. In order for this virus to die out. We need to be safe and contain it so it could finally stop. Take it serious when it's any Pandemic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vivek Murthy was a central figure in the decision to cancel the N.C.A.A. basketball tournaments in March. He's poised to have a major role in the Biden administration's response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Dr. Vivek Murthy, who is President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s nominee for surgeon general, had a key role for the N.C.A.A. as it considered its initial response to the coronavirus pandemic. Credit... Hilary Swift for The New York Times

The coronavirus had started to grip the United States, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association's board convened an emergency conference call to consider the fate of the organization's lifeblood: the annual basketball championships that generate hundreds of millions of dollars of the organization's revenue.

There was no way to know how many cases were still undetected, Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, a former United States surgeon general, told the board minutes into the March 12 call. Murthy, a member of both the board and an N.C.A.A. medical advisory panel, warned that moving ahead with the coast-to-coast competitions could fuel a deadly crisis.

Within an hour, the board voted to cancel the men's and women's basketball tournaments - spectacles that typically drive millions of Americans to fill out brackets, enter office pools and watch televised games for hours.

"He was instrumental in convincing the board that the time to act was now," said Kenneth I. Chenault, a former chairman of American Express who sits on the N.C.A.A. board.

Nine months later, the urgent deliberations inside the N.C.A.A. offer a view into how Murthy approached the pandemic's initial threat in the United States, and how he might help shape the federal government's response under President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., who said this week he had chosen Murthy for another stint as surgeon general.

A newcomer to the insular world of college athletics, Murthy proved a cautious, deliberate expert who was wary of making drastic decisions prematurely, interviews with more than a dozen people who participated in the N.C.A.A.'s meetings suggest. But they said that as the tournaments approached and more data and scientific research emerged from around the world, Murthy was a forceful and effective champion of measures that had been unthinkable to most of society only days or weeks earlier.

Now, his mandate is poised to be far larger. And in many respects, the surgeon general's role is expected to be radically different than what it was when he left office in 2017. He is likely to become one of the most visible members of the new administration, opening his approach and his ideas to greater scrutiny from the public and from Capitol Hill, where his nomination during the Obama administration became mired in the politics of gun control before the Senate confirmed him in December 2014.

Through a spokesman for Biden's transition team, Murthy declined to comment this week.

But in an interview on March 7, Murthy showed an early approach to the virus that sought to balance his growing worries with some bedrock principles of public health.

"It's a judgment call at the end of the day because there is no tried and true protocol here for how to handle this kind of outbreak with Covid-19," he said then. "We're in a relatively new situation. We can draw on our experience with other outbreaks like SARS and MERS and H1N1 and Zika, but we know that each of these outbreaks is unique."

He did not, he said, "want to make decisions based on panic."

Image

N.C.A.A. headquarters in Indianapolis on March 12, the day board members canceled the national basketball tournaments for 2020. Credit... Michael Conroy/Associated Press

The virus was still seen as a problem mainly outside the United States on Jan. 22, when the N.C.A.A. board met at a Marriott near Los Angeles. Murthy was a recent addition, an independent member recruited for his medical expertise and appointed after college basketball's corruption scandal.

The virus did not come up.

But by early March, officials at the N.C.A.A.'s headquarters in Indianapolis were deeply alarmed. The scarcely understood virus was gaining more footholds across the United States, and the bonanza of basketball tournaments, which can draw hundreds of thousands of spectators, was coming. Association leaders turned to a favored strategy: an advisory group.

The panel, mostly made up of doctors, began meeting twice a week to weigh options for the N.C.A.A. tournaments, with Murthy so unassuming that one member did not immediately recognize him as a former surgeon general. Trained as an internist, Murthy was not steeped in the intricacies of infectious diseases and, despite his résumé, did not try to dominate the calls.

Instead, committee members said, he would usually ask probing questions.

Dr. Brian Hainline, the panel's chairman and the N.C.A.A.'s chief medical officer, said Murthy was often armed with the latest studies from overseas and eager to examine how trends abroad could help doctors in the United States grapple with what was ahead.

"My clear recollection is that it was always a thoughtful presentation and thoughtful analyses and asking what are the implications in our country, given that we're two or three weeks behind what is going on in Europe," Hainline said.

Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious diseases specialist at Vanderbilt University, remembered Murthy having a particular interest in the effects of the pandemic and public health decisions on the mental health of students, coaches and others tied to college sports.

Most crucially, panel members said, Murthy was particularly skillful at synthesizing their complex debates to craft and communicate policy proposals that were scalable for an enterprise the size of college sports.

"He sort of listened first and then usually came out with a statement, usually very wise, that kind of incorporated everything that everyone was saying, with the added measure of someone who has been at the federal level," said Dr. Colleen S. Kraft, an associate professor at the Emory University School of Medicine who was on the panel.

Schaffner sometimes wondered whether a day would come when the board would regard the committee's ideas as too extreme. After all, panel members said, Murthy, a badminton player with a deepening sense of the role of college sports in society, was already clearly judging the virus to be a systemic, long-term crisis.

The Sprint Center in Kansas City, Mo., after the Big 12 Conference canceled its basketball tournaments. Credit... Charlie Riedel/Associated Press

On March 11, the N.C.A.A. Board of Governors agreed with the advisory committee and made a choice that would have seemed preposterous weeks before: The N.C.A.A. would forbid spectators at tournament games.

The very next day, after the N.B.A. had suspended its season, the advisory panel convened again. The outlook was even grimmer, with more and more evidence pointing toward a far-reaching medical calamity with no precedent in modern times. To the doctors advising the N.C.A.A., the basketball tournaments had to go.

"I recall March 11 as being deliberative, and I recall March 12 as being a fait accompli, like there was no choice," Hainline said.

The doctors, though, were charged only with offering medical advice and could not cancel competitions. Murthy would have to make the case to a board tasked with considering myriad issues before reaching a decision.

"He has an ability to see through to the timing of decisions," said Denis McDonough, who was then on the N.C.A.A. board and had previously been the White House chief of staff when Murthy was surgeon general.

"The right decision at the wrong time is the wrong decision, and Vivek understands that," McDonough, Biden's selection to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs, added. "It's not that he gets to a point and he's got conviction and he goes to work on that conviction; it's that he understands the time and space constraints that he's operating in."

Members dialed into the emergency call with the start of the national tournaments only days away. Teams were already on the road for smaller feeder tournaments, most of which had been completed or upended.

Some powerful university leaders leaned toward abandoning the national tournaments, even though they were vital to the balance sheets of the N.C.A.A. and to the schools themselves. But there were almost certainly some skeptics within the board's ranks, members said, with many of them knowing well that coaches, players and boosters would, at the very least, be privately furious.

Murthy spoke early in the meeting. His voice was even but urgent as he delivered what his scattered audience - one board member listened from a car bound for Nashville, another from an arena in New Jersey - found to be an unmistakably dire message.

Detailing the possible trajectory of the virus, he made obvious that the tournaments could lead to deadly consequences.

"He based his opinions on sound public health science and principles and data, and that was very clear," said Michael V. Drake, an ophthalmologist who then led Ohio State University and is now the president of the University of California. "He was the subject matter expert, but he was very respectful of his colleagues on the board, many of whom came from different perspectives and different points of view."

Video

Speaking at a virtual New York Times event in September, former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said greater coordination and investment is needed to track vaccinations and other vital public health metrics. Credit Credit... Rebecca Blackwell/Associated Press

Indeed, Murthy subtly beseeched members to consider not just the terrifying mathematics of disease modeling, but also the N.C.A.A.'s social responsibility. Just as notable to many members, he was also plainly aware of the financial and cultural costs of canceling the N.C.A.A.'s signature event.

"He conveyed it in such a way that he understood how painful it would be for people and for student-athletes, and he was very upfront about that," said the Rev. James J. Maher, the president of Niagara University in New York.

"I won't say it softened the blow," Father Maher continued, "but you felt like somebody really understood the situation."

Coupled with Hainline's assessment, board members said their decision was inevitable after Murthy's remarks, which Mary Sue Coleman, a former president of the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa, described as "a complete wake-up call."

"I don't think you could have left those presentations and been in doubt," said John J. DeGioia, Georgetown University's president, who added, "He's just got a remarkable equanimity. There's kind of a self-possession that reassures you. You do feel more comfortable, more confident."

Still, the board talked a while longer. N.C.A.A. executives said that it would be hard to stage championships not only for basketball but for other winter and spring sports, too. Murthy's presentation kept replaying in board members' heads.

"It was all a hard realization that this was really going to happen," Coleman said. She added: "Having him there as an adviser, as an expert helped people understand why it wasn't going to be possible" to hold the tournaments.

The board's vote was unanimous.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
N.C.A.A. Crisis Shows How Biden's Surgeon General Pick Navigated the Pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vivek Murthy was a central figure in the decision to cancel the N.C.A.A. basketball tournaments in March. He's poised to have a major role in the Biden administration's response to the coronavirus pandemic.

# data[].attributes.headline
1. Include the link in the LINK SPOT!!2. Put title of the article, Source of the article and date of the article.3. Why is this an example of the Legislative branch using its powers? 4. What is your opinion of this? 

# data[].attributes.subject
1. Include the link in the LINK SPOT!!2. Put title of the article, Source of the article and date of the article.3. Why is this an example of the Legislative branch using its powers? 4. What is your opinion of this? 

# data[].attributes.headline
Congress Will Press Ahead on Military Bill, Defying Trump’s Veto Threat new york times-12/2

# data[].attributes.subject
Congress Will Press Ahead on Military Bill, Defying Trump’s Veto Threat new york times-12/2

# data[].attributes.body
3. Why is this an example of the Legislative branch using its powers?
4. What is your opinion of this?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Republicans said they would not add a repeal demanded by President Trump of a legal shield for social media companies, and Democrats said they were prepared for a veto showdown.

President Trump's veto threat raises the specter of a showdown over a popular measure that includes things like pay increases for troops and has not failed to pass in 60 years. Credit... Erin Schaff/The New York Times

WASHINGTON - Leading Republicans and Democrats in Congress said on Wednesday that they would press ahead in advancing an annual military policy bill without adding a repeal demanded by President Trump of a legal shield for social media companies, defying his threat to veto the legislation over the unrelated issue.

Republicans' determination to advance the measure over Mr. Trump's objections amounted to a rare refusal by his allies on Capitol Hill to accommodate the president's hard-line stance, which has threatened to imperil the bill that authorizes pay raises for American troops. And it raised the prospect of a possible veto showdown in the final weeks of Mr. Trump's presidency - on a popular measure that has not failed to pass in 60 years.

"I don't want it on this bill, because we can't have a bill if that language is on it," said Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, describing what he told the president about the legal liability provision. "We just had an honest disagreement, very friendly."

Mr. Trump threatened in July to veto the legislation over a provision requiring the removal of Confederate leaders' names from military bases, a measure that drew broad bipartisan support and was included in both the House and Senate versions of the bill. But with his time in office winding down, the president has become increasingly fixated on the idea of using the popular, must-pass legislation to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects platforms like Facebook and YouTube from being sued over much of the content posted by their users, and how they choose to take that content down.

The provision has attracted increasing criticism from both parties, but especially from Mr. Trump and his allies, who say tech companies have hid behind it while suppressing conservative views. The White House had quietly floated the idea that Mr. Trump might drop his objection to renaming military bases if lawmakers would go along on Section 230. The notion met with swift opposition from members of both parties.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Trump took to Twitter to warn that he would veto the bill if it did not include the repeal.

Lawmakers and aides had worked for days to resolve the dispute, with Democrats refusing to accept any change to Section 230 and Republicans quietly discussing potential compromises even as many privately conceded such a provision did not belong on the defense measure. By late Tuesday night, Republicans had reached a breaking point, concluding that they had no choice but to move the bill forward without it.

It is not yet clear whether Mr. Trump will make good on his threat to veto the bill, and less clear still whether lawmakers could muster the two-thirds supermajority in both chambers to achieve what would be the first veto override of his presidency.

But in an interview on Wednesday, Representative Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, hinted that such an outcome was possible.

"Lane No. 1, at this point, is the president comes to his senses," Mr. Smith said in an interview. "Lane No. 2 is we get as strong a vote as possible and we override."

"I think we get a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate and we get it done," he added.

Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, said on Wednesday that the president "is serious" about the veto.

"The president will always defend our military, ensure that we get adequate defense funding, as he's gotten $2.9 trillion so far," Ms. McEnany said, "but he is going to put the pressure on Congress to step up on this."

At least one Republican, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who sits on the Armed Services Committee and opposed the base-renaming amendment, deriding it as "woke fundamentalism," said he would vote against the final bill.

Using the abbreviation for the bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, Mr. Hawley wrote on Twitter: "The NDAA does NOT contain any reform to Section 230 but DOES contain Elizabeth Warren's social engineering amendment to unilaterally rename bases & war memorials w/ no public input or process."

But Mr. Smith said that after initially digging in over the base-renaming language amid a national outcry for racial justice, Mr. Trump appeared to have lost interest in the issue.

"He got distracted, and the basic strength of the other side of the argument won the day," Mr. Smith said. "It's also possible that the president and the people around him realized this was not a fight that they wanted to have."

On no other issue have Republicans been as willing to challenge Mr. Trump as on national security, expressing rare public disapproval over his attempts to end interminable conflicts overseas and his cozy relationship with dictators in violation of human rights abuses.

In defying Mr. Trump on the military policy measure, Republican leaders also may have their eyes on a pair of runoffs in Georgia that will determine which party controls the Senate. The state is home to a dozen military installations populated by personnel who would be denied a pay raise and improvements to military housing if the military bill were derailed.

The protections provided by Section 230 have allowed Silicon Valley's giants to grow rapidly. But the companies' critics say the law gave them a free pass from policing content like explicit images of children and videos produced by terrorist groups. That criticism is bipartisan: President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. has called for the protections to be "revoked."

Over the course of negotiations, Republicans in the Senate suggested a wide range of changes to Section 230, none of which interested House Democrats, said multiple people familiar with the matter.

One proposal was to attach language, championed by Republican lawmakers who believe social media platforms are slanted against conservatives, that would narrow the liability shield. They also floated language drafted by the Justice Department to limit the protections.

Republicans also proposed adding more moderate language from a bipartisan bill that would require platforms to quickly take down content in response to court orders, said two people familiar with the matter. Senator Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat who is an author of that proposal, said in a Tuesday night tweet that the idea that Section 230 should be "repealed, with no hearing, in the defense bill, is goofy."

Many in the president's own party privately agreed with Mr. Schatz's assessment. When senior Republican lawmakers were first told of Mr. Trump's demand, some initially responded by laughing out loud, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

Emily Cochrane contributed reporting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Congress Will Press Ahead on Military Bill, Defying Trump's Veto Threat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Republicans said they would not add a repeal demanded by President Trump of a legal shield for social media companies, and Democrats said they were prepared for a veto showdown.

# data[].attributes.headline
House Maps Show Americans Growing Apart - Wall Street Journal - Dec. 11, 2020 

# data[].attributes.subject
House Maps Show Americans Growing Apart - Wall Street Journal - Dec. 11, 2020 

# data[].attributes.body
3. It's showing the government that America is spreading apart even more just because of politics and that they need to step in and work on something.

4. To me, since I'm just a ordinary 13 year-old that knows little about politics, I feel like the people are protesting and rioting for no reason since their is already a president-elect heading into the the office in the coming month. I personally think that the people are just not showing any respect and the government needs to step in and show that this is is  a place in time where we already have lots of problems going on, and just spreading divined hatred is not the right thing to do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Not long ago, voters in North Dakota and South Dakota sent Democrats to Congress, while voters in Connecticut sent Republicans. But today, the Farm Belt elects few Democrats, while the Northeast elects few Republicans.

The nation's political divisions are rooted in geographic divisions, a trend that is clearly revealed by the changing party control of seats in the House of Representatives. Two decades of House maps show how Democrats have become the party of metropolitan America, particularly in the Northeast and the West. By contrast, Republicans are dominant in the heartland and in less-populous places outside the big metros, particularly in the South and much of the Midwest.

The chart below shows that in almost every election, the party that gains seats does so in all regions of the country. But amid those changes, the nation's geographic divide has widened. While the Northeast and West in 2000 showed much different political profiles than the South, those differences are substantially wider today.

House maps over time show the changing contours of the parties' strength in different parts of the nation.

The House map produced by the election of 2000 shows Democratic blue in North Dakota and northern Minnesota as well as splashes of blue in central Missouri, West Virginia and the Carolinas. Many of these regions were represented by "Blue Dog'' Democrats, or centrist members of the party who won support from voters in rural communities, small towns and smaller metros.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Blue Coasts, Red Heartland: House Maps Show Americans Growing Apart

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not long ago, voters in North Dakota and South Dakota sent Democrats to Congress, while voters in Connecticut sent Republicans. But today, the Farm Belt elects few Democrats, while the Northeast elects few Republicans. The nation's political divisions are rooted in geographic divisions, a trend that is clearly revealed by the changing party control of seats in the House of Representatives.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump raises China concerns as reason to veto defense bill-AP news, Dec.12, 2020

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump raises China concerns as reason to veto defense bill-AP news, Dec.12, 2020

# data[].attributes.body
3.The president vetoed a bill about military budget
4. I think he shouldn't have vetoed a bill because China would be our new defense line. I think who should have looked through the entire bill to make sure that he wanted to veto it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Donald Trump offered a new rationale Sunday for threatening to veto the annual defense policy bill that covers the military's budget for equipment and pay raises for service members: China. He did not outline his concerns.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers say the wide-ranging defense policy bill, which the Senate sent to the president on Friday, would be tough on China and must become law as soon as possible.

Both the House and Senate passed the measure by margins large enough to override a potential veto from the president, who has a history of failing to carry out actions he has threatened.

"The biggest winner of our new defense bill is China! I will veto!" Trump said in a new tweet.

The White House did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment on Trump's specific concerns about China.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said the bill would help deter Chinese aggression. Other GOP backers of the measure, including Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the second-ranking Senate leader, and Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, have tweeted that the bill would counter threats from countries such as China.

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Trump's declaration that China is the biggest winner in the defense bill is false. Reed also noted the shifting explanations Trump has given for the veto threats.

"President Trump clearly hasn't read the bill, nor does he understand what's in it," Reed said. "There are several bipartisan provisions in here that get tougher on China than the Trump Administration has ever been."

A potential override of a veto would be a first for Trump and would come not long before he leaves office Jan. 20. A two-thirds vote is needed in each chamber for the bill to become law without Trump's signature.

The president has made numerous threats over Twitter to veto the bill over a requirement that military bases honoring Confederate leaders eventually be renamed. He also threatened a veto to try to force lawmakers to include provisions - unrelated to the military and national defense - to punish social media companies he claims were biased against him during the election.

Congress has approved the bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, for nearly 60 years in a row. The current version affirms 3% pay raises for U.S. troops and authorizes more than $740 billion in military programs and construction.

The measure guides Pentagon policy and cements decisions about troop levels, new weapons systems and military readiness, military personnel policy and other military goals. Many programs can only go into effect if the bill is approved, including military construction.

McConnell, in a rare break with Trump, had urged passage despite Trump's threat to veto it. McConnell said it was important for Congress to continue its nearly six-decade long streak of passing the defense policy bill.

In addition to the budget and pay raises it would provide, McConnell said the bill will "keep our forces ready to deter China and stand strong in the Indo-Pacific."

Gallagher tweeted last week that the United States was at the beginning of a "New Cold War" with China and that the defense bill "takes important steps to help us meet these challenges and ultimately win this competition." Thune had said in a tweet that the measure would help the U.S. defend against threats from China and Russia. "It's important for this bill to become law ASAP," he said.

Trump tweeted last Tuesday that he will veto "the very weak" defense bill unless it repeals Section 230, part of the communications code that shields Twitter, Facebook and other tech giants from content liability. The White House said in a policy statement that "Section 230 facilitates the spread of disinformation online and is a serious threat to our national security and election integrity. It should be repealed.″

___

Associated Press writer Matthew Daly contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump raises China concerns as reason to veto defense bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Donald Trump offered a new rationale Sunday for threatening to veto the annual defense policy bill that covers the military's budget for equipment and pay raises for service members: China. He did not outline his concerns.

# data[].attributes.headline
Biden vows at least 100M vaccines in 1st 100 days in office

# data[].attributes.subject
Biden vows at least 100M vaccines in 1st 100 days in office

# data[].attributes.body
December 9, 2020 Good Morning America

Biden can make an order like having 100 million vaccines created by the end of his first 100 days in office.

I disagreed with this because 100 days isn't enough to make 100 millions of them, but it could be if in terrible quality or not fully going into the phrase of making a vaccine. Biden hasn't experienced what it's like to be president, so putting that pressure on him would make it even harder. To put in one sentence, I disagree because the vaccine is not guaranteed safe and our president would be absent a lot because of holding the pressure.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biden vows at least 100M vaccines in 1st 100 days in office

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The President-elect released his plan that includes rolling out 100 million COVID vaccine shots, along with an executive order that would require masks in federal areas.

# data[].attributes.headline
As The Virus Spikes, Vaccine Distribution Is One More Hurdle for States                     | January 3rd, 2021 |    - New York Times -

# data[].attributes.subject
As The Virus Spikes, Vaccine Distribution Is One More Hurdle for States                     | January 3rd, 2021 |    - New York Times -

# data[].attributes.body
This is an example of Federalism because, during the Pandemic Vaccines are slowly rolling into cities and states which is a big problem for health facilities and hospitals.
So the federal government took this operation into their own hands so the process goes faster.

However, President Trump blamed the states for the slow duration and start of distributing even after the federal government already handled out the vaccines and claimed "a successful and very large distribution of vaccines."

I can understand and agree why Trump is blaming the states for the slow process and they need to speed it up so everyone that needs it, has it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mass vaccination would be a challenge under any circumstances. But doing it during an out-of-control pandemic is straining states, cities and health departments.

A line for the vaccine being offered to frontline health care workers and those 65 and older in Lehigh Acres, Fla., in December. Credit... Octavio Jones for The New York Times

The coronavirus vaccine may end the pandemic at some point, but for now its slow rollout is straining relations between the federal government and states and cities, and is adding one more huge challenge for overstressed health departments.

In a tweet on Friday, President Trump said the states were to blame for the slow start to inoculating Americans, after the federal government's "successful and very large scale distribution of vaccines."

But Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles said that at a time when the coronavirus is infecting a new person every six seconds in Los Angeles County, and the number of people hospitalized with Covid-19 across California has more than doubled in a month, the sluggish distribution of vaccine was not acceptable.

The Trump administration had said 20 million people would be vaccinated by the end of 2020. The figure was closer to four million.

"We are at a pace right now to deliver vaccines in L.A. over five years, instead of over half a year," Mr. Garcetti said on the CBS program "Face the Nation." He criticized the Trump administration for not planning ahead by training more medical workers to administer the vaccine, and for not giving enough assistance to state and local governments.

"The federal government can't tell the local governments and state governments to do something and not give us aid," he said.

Congress passed a stimulus package on Dec. 27 that will provide $9 billion toward vaccination costs, on top of $340 million that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent to the states in September and December. But the new funds will arrive long after local health departments - already overburdened with mass testing and contact tracing efforts - had to begin planning for and administering vaccines.

The process is entering a new level of chaos as public health departments begin to make the vaccine available to high-risk members of the general public. In Houston, the city health department's phone system crashed on Saturday, the first day of a free vaccination clinic, after receiving more than 250,000 calls.

Image

Family members mourn the death of Gilberto Arreguin, who died from complications of Covid-19, in Los Angeles in December. Credit... Alex Welsh for The New York Times

Older people in Tullahoma, Tenn., lined up on a sidewalk Saturday, leaning on walkers and sitting in lawn chairs, wrapped in blankets and heavy coats, to wait for the county health department to open its free clinic. The clinic exhausted its supply of vaccine before 10 a.m.

States have said their efforts are beginning to build momentum, and that some of the initial problems have been worked out.

Surgeon General Jerome Adams said on Sunday that the slow start to the vaccination campaign was due in part to the holidays, when many public health workers were on vacation. It was also a time when virus cases were surging nationwide, leaving fewer local public health resources available than if the vaccine had arrived when cases were under control.

"The good news is that we're seeing it quickly ramp up, thanks to our state partners," Dr. Adams said on the CNN program "State of the Union." "In the last 72 hours, we saw 1.5 million first shots reported."

He said it was not a surprise that the program ran into snags.

"This was always going to be the most difficult vaccine rollout in history, even if it wasn't superimposed on a surge and a holiday season," Dr. Adams said, repeating a message he attributed to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the country's leading infectious disease expert.

Another obstacle looms now, one that Dr. Adams said he is "terribly concerned" about: persuading enough Americans to take the vaccine.

In Ohio, for instance, Gov. Mike DeWine has said that about 60 percent of nursing home workers in the state have declined to be vaccinated so far, a statistic he repeated in a television appearance on Sunday. Mr. DeWine did not elaborate on where the figure came from; his office referred inquiries to the state's Department of Health, which did not respond to inquiries about it on Sunday.

Emergency room workers assessed patients who were exhibiting Covid-19 symptoms in a triage tent in Colton, Calif., in December. Credit... Alex Welsh for The New York Times

The figure rang true for Pete Van Runkle, executive director of the Ohio Health Care Association, which represents about two-thirds of Ohio's skilled nursing facilities. In conversations with the association's members, Mr. Van Runkle said many were reporting that less than half of their employees were choosing to receive the vaccine, and one said just 30 percent had done so.

Mr. Van Runkle attributed the low figures to misinformation and fear, and expressed hope that the reluctant workers will change their minds after seeing colleagues vaccinated without adverse effects.

"Folks are susceptible to that misinformation," he said. "As they see what real life brings, hopefully that will make a difference."

In an appearance on CNN Sunday, Gov. DeWine said the low acceptance rates among nursing home workers alarmed him, and would prompt more education efforts about the vaccine's safety. He noted that nursing homes that educated their workers about the vaccine ahead of time have had far higher compliance.

"You have a risk," he said of nursing home workers, "but also the people in that nursing home have a risk, and this shot does work, and is in fact very, very safe."

In Los Angeles, which has become one of the country's worst coronavirus hot spots, Mayor Garcetti warned that mask orders and restrictions on businesses have not been enough to slow the virus in private settings, where people let their guard down.

"This is something now that really is spreading in the home," Mr. Garcetti said. "It's a message for all of America: We might not all have the same density as L.A., but what's happening in L.A. can and will be coming in many communities."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
As the Virus Spikes, Vaccine Distribution Is One More Hurdle for States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mass vaccination would be a challenge under any circumstances. But doing it during an out-of-control pandemic is straining states, cities and health departments. The coronavirus vaccine may end the pandemic at some point, but for now its slow rollout is straining relations between the federal government and states and cities, and is adding one more huge challenge for overstressed health departments.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court Backs Muslim Men in Case on No-Fly List. December 10,2020.(The New York Times)

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court Backs Muslim Men in Case on No-Fly List. December 10,2020.(The New York Times)

# data[].attributes.body
The supreme court did not allow three muslim men to fly and put them on the no fly list.For not being government informants.(giving information about something certain to the government)I think this is not fair because these muslim men did absolutely nothing wrong.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The court also dismissed a challenge to Delaware's court system, which takes account of judges' partisan ties to create ideological balance.

In the case on the Muslim men, Tanzin v. Tanvir, the Supreme Court ruled that they were entitled to seek damages from officers they say tried to force them to violate their religious beliefs. Credit... Al Drago/Getty Images

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of three Muslim men who say they were put on the no-fly list in retaliation for refusing to become government informants.

The court also dismissed a challenge to Delaware's court system, which takes account of the political affiliations of judges in an attempt to achieve ideological balance.

The decisions were among four unanimous rulings issued Thursday, the first ones in cases argued in the term that started in October. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in any of the cases, which were argued before she joined the court.

The decision concerning the Muslim men, Tanzin v. Tanvir, No. 19-71, said they were entitled to seek damages from officers they say tried to force them to violate their religious beliefs by spying on other Muslims. The men had sued under a federal law protecting religious liberty, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and the legal question was whether it allows suits for money against government officials.

The Trump administration, which in other settings has taken a broad view of the law, had urged the court to dismiss the suit, saying it would interfere with "sensitive matters of national security and law enforcement."

The legal proceedings are at an early stage, and the court was required to assume that the version of events set out in the lawsuit was true.

The lead plaintiff, Muhammad Tanvir, was a lawful permanent resident who lived in Queens and worked as a long-haul truck driver, and his job often required him to fly home after completing his deliveries. But when he tried to get on a flight in Atlanta in October 2010, the lawsuits said, he was turned away. Two F.B.I. agents drove him to a bus station, and it took him about 24 hours to get home.

Mr. Tanvir quit his job. On three occasions, he bought plane tickets to visit his mother in Pakistan, who was in failing health. He was not allowed to fly. Throughout, agents told him that they would help him get off the list - if he cooperated.

After Mr. Tanvir and two other men who said they were subjected to similar pressure to become informants sued the agents in 2013, the government told them that they could fly again. That left open the question of whether they were entitled to damages for the harm they had suffered.

A trial judge dismissed the case, but a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, revived it. The 1993 law, Judge Rosemary S. Pooler wrote for the panel, allowed Mr. Tanvir to seek money from the agents.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court on Thursday, agreed. "There may be policy reasons why Congress may wish to shield government employees from personal liability, and Congress is free to do so," he wrote. "But there are no constitutional reasons why we must do so in its stead."

Justice Thomas noted that the agents may nevertheless be protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields government officials from suits over violations of constitutional rights that were not clearly established at the time of the conduct in question. That issue was not before the court.

In the case from Delaware, Carney v. Adams, No. 19-309, the court ruled that a lawyer challenging partisan balancing in the state's judiciary had not suffered the sort of concrete injury that gave him standing to sue. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the court, said the lawyer, James R. Adams, seemed more interested in the abstract legal question of whether the system violated the First Amendment than in actually becoming a judge.

Delaware's court system is both widely admired and idiosyncratic, a product of two unusual provisions in its Constitution. One says that judges affiliated with any one political party cannot make up more than a bare majority of the state's five main courts. The other says that only judges affiliated with one of the two major parties may sit on the Delaware Supreme Court and two other courts.

Mr. Adams, a longtime Democrat who became what he called a "Bernie Sanders independent" around the time he sued, challenged the provisions, and the federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled in his favor.

But Justice Breyer said Mr. Adams had not demonstrated that he had standing to sue, as he had not applied for vacancies for which he had been eligible when he was a Democrat, came out of retirement and changed his affiliation around the time he filed his suit, and took no steps to apply for a judgeship.

"Lawyers, such as Adams, may feel sincerely and strongly that Delaware's laws should comply with the federal Constitution," Justice Breyer wrote. "But that kind of interest does not create standing."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the two provisions challenged by Mr. Adams presented distinct issues.

"Bare majority requirements preclude any single political party from having more than a bare majority of the seats in a public body," she wrote. "Such requirements have existed in various forums for roughly 150 years, currently feature in a large number of public bodies and have been shown to help achieve ideological diversity."

"Major party requirements like Delaware's, by contrast, preclude anyone who is not a member of the two major political parties from serving in a public body," she wrote. "They are far rarer than their bare majority cousins, and they arguably impose a greater burden on First Amendment associational rights."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Backs Muslim Men in Case on No-Fly List

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The court also dismissed a challenge to Delaware's court system, which takes account of judges' partisan ties to create ideological balance. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of three Muslim men who say they were put on the no-fly list in retaliation for refusing to become government informants.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump’s Coronavirus Response Has Single-Handedly Created a New Federalism New York Times April 14, 2020

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump’s Coronavirus Response Has Single-Handedly Created a New Federalism New York Times April 14, 2020

# data[].attributes.body
3. This is an example of federalism because the federal government took control of the covid situation.
4. This is good in my opinion because they have worked together to solve the health of everyone.

# data[].attributes.headline
What the Democrats Achieve By Threatening to Pack the Supreme Court New York Times October 18, 2020

# data[].attributes.subject
What the Democrats Achieve By Threatening to Pack the Supreme Court New York Times October 18, 2020

# data[].attributes.body
3. This is an example of of judicial power because they take part in discussing everything they do in the world.
4. This is good because no one makes decisions on their on part without some sort of discussion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alabama Governor Signs Abortion Ban into Law (May 14, 2019)(NPR,KERA)

# data[].attributes.subject
Alabama Governor Signs Abortion Ban into Law (May 14, 2019)(NPR,KERA)

# data[].attributes.body
This shows federalism because some people think abortion is okay and some people think it is a bad thing.Abortion is legal in many states but the alabama governor banned it. I think this isn't a bad idea because no matter what the baby does not deserve to die. Banning this forces people to put the baby up for adoption which is much better for the baby and the baby's future of course.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alabama Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The law bans nearly all abortions and is among the most restrictive in the country. It’s part of a broader anti-abortion strategy to prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the right to abortion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alabama Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Alabama Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law

# data[].attributes.body
this is an example of federalism (state) because this was a matter that varied with different people, so each state had their law on it. alabama decided to ban abortions which i personally disagree with because i think that if you have a baby you are not prepared for you can screw up its life and not be able to provide it with the necessary things it needs. to that some people would just say "put it into the foster care system". many bad things happen in the foster care system, its not rare that the girls AND the boys get raped, beat, neglected, and even sometimes killed. and thats not just with the foster care center they are placed in, but the homes they a put in, whether thats a home with two parents and a sibling or a group home. the system is so worried about making the money that they dont really think about the child and the home they are being placed in. (i will provide a few links that may elaborate.)

https://www.healio.com/news/pediatrics/20200424/children-in-foster-care-42-more-likely-to-die-than-children-in-general-population

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2020/09/04/after-11-foster-children-die-texas-to-be-in-contempt-of-court-ndash-again/42383213/

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/sexual-abuse-an-epidemic-in-foster-care-settings-6703#:~:text=A%20study%20by%20John%20Hopkins,not%20living%20in%20these%20homes.

"A study by John Hopkins University found that children who are in foster care are four times more likely to be sexually abused than other children not in this setting. Additionally, children who are in group homes are 28 times more likely to be abused than children not living in these homes."

https://www.healio.com/news/psychiatry/20161017/children-in-foster-care-more-likely-to-have-physical-mental-health-problems

and that is just the surface of many more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alabama Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The law bans nearly all abortions and is among the most restrictive in the country. It’s part of a broader anti-abortion strategy to prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the right to abortion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Courts Suspending Jury Trials as COVID-19 Cases Surge                11/20/20

# data[].attributes.subject
Courts Suspending Jury Trials as COVID-19 Cases Surge                11/20/20

# data[].attributes.body
The Judicial Branch shows how they have power to cancel or declare that courts can not have Trials or hearings cause of Covid-19.
I believe this was a smart and safe decision and it will save many lives instead of putting innocent people at risk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About two dozen U.S. district courts have posted orders that suspend jury trials or grand jury proceedings, and scale back other courthouse activities in response to a sharp nationwide rise in coronavirus (COVID-19) cases. The surge in new court orders in recent weeks marks a significant pause in efforts by federal courts to resume full operations.

Although courts have safely conducted jury trials during the pandemic, and many of the nation's 94 districts are still scheduling jury trials, several judges said that spikes in new diagnoses and hospitalizations have made the convening of juries an unacceptable risk. Some said they expect conditions to worsen as winter hits.

"In order to resume jury trials, we will need to see the key health markers, as measured by the Colorado Department of Health, go down to acceptable levels," said Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer, of the District of Colorado. "I am concerned that the markers will stay high for several months, despite recent efforts by the governor and metro-area mayors to put in place new restrictions."

The orders issued in recent weeks affect courts in most regions of the country, but they are especially pronounced in cold-weather areas in the North, Midwest, and Plains states. Orders suspending jury trials or grand jury sessions have been posted since mid-October on 25 district court websites, while an additional dozen courts have continued suspensions that were already in effect.

On Nov. 5, the District of Colorado suspended all jury and in-person bench trials, as well as all grand jury sessions, until at least Jan. 8. An order signed by Brimmer cited "positivity rates, the number of hospitalizations, and cumulative incidences per 100,000 people."

In addition to health data, some orders cited growing difficulties in getting jurors to hear cases. "Citizens' increasing inability and reluctance to serve on juries is understandable," said a Nov. 6 order signed by Chief Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr., of the Eastern District of Arkansas, "but it creates the possibility that our juries will not reflect a fair cross section of the Eastern District."

In late April, barely a month after many courts had closed their buildings to public visitors due to rising COVID-19 cases, the Judiciary issued a "gating" strategy to guide courts in a gradual reopening. The document encouraged courts to tie their decisions to a range of local COVID-19 data, which at the time were stabilizing and even improving in many states.

From the start, however, the gating mechanism was designed to move in two directions, also guiding courts on how to scale back or close in-person functions if local health data worsened. As new records in daily cases affect most parts of the country at the same time, court leaders have anticipated and responded to the changing landscape.

"We were going through the positive stages of recovery, beginning jury trials in August and so forth, but there was another conversation going on all the time," said Chief Judge James K. Bredar, of the District of Maryland. "We prepared a rollback template before we needed it and thought through the kinds of issues that we might face and need to deal with."

Bredar ordered his court to suspend all in-person court proceedings from Nov. 16 through the end of the month. While the current order only covers two weeks, the court is evaluating whether to suspend in-person proceedings for a longer period.

"Our epidemiologist has taught me that in the context of COVID-19, it's not just the raw numbers that matter. It's the slopes of the curves," Bredar said. "Unfortunately, our numbers are up, and the slope of the curve is not good, whether it's hospitalizations, test positivity, even deaths."

The districts posting recent orders are: Alaska; Arizona; Eastern District of Arkansas; Colorado; Northern, Central and Southern Districts of Illinois; Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana; Kansas; Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky; Maine; Maryland; Minnesota; Western District of Missouri; Nebraska; Nevada; Northern District of Oklahoma; Western District of Pennsylvania; Western District of Texas; Utah; Eastern District of Virginia; Eastern District of Washington; and Western District of Wisconsin.

In addition, the Northern District of New York has postponed jury trials until Jan. 19 without issuing a court order, after discussions among judges, the Federal Public Defender, and the U.S. attorney's office. And the District of Idaho has lowered its courtroom capacity from 50 to 10.

"We have seen a large uptick in cases after each major event, and with Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's coming, it was thought more prudent to suspend jury trials," said John M. Domurad, clerk of court of the Northern District of New York. "We are actively encouraging doing other proceedings remotely."

A few courts have moved in the opposite direction, recently resuming jury trials based on local conditions. And many districts have maintained jury trials throughout the COVID-19 emergency.

"Our court has held nine jury trials and we have had no issues, and no one has gotten sick," said Chief Judge L. Scott Coogler, of the Northern District of Alabama. "But like courts everywhere, we are seeing the increase in COVID-19 cases, and we are being more cautious."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Courts Suspending Jury Trials as COVID-19 Cases Surge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About two dozen U.S. district courts have posted orders that suspend jury trials or grand jury proceedings, and scale back other courthouse activities in response to a sharp nationwide rise in coronavirus (COVID-19) cases. The surge in new court orders in recent weeks marks a significant pause in efforts by federal courts to resume full operations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pence announces Biden's victory after Congress completes electoral count.

# data[].attributes.subject
Pence announces Biden's victory after Congress completes electoral count.

# data[].attributes.body
January 7,2021(4 hours ago)On CBS news. This is an example of Popular Sovereignty because popular sovereignty is all about votes. This is what is telling us that the election is over and Joe Biden has won the election.
My opinion on this is that joe biden won and this is popular sovereignty because of votes.

# data[].attributes.headline
How a Pro-Trump Mob Stormed the U.S. Capitol New York Times Jan. 6, 2021

# data[].attributes.subject
How a Pro-Trump Mob Stormed the U.S. Capitol New York Times Jan. 6, 2021

# data[].attributes.body
The people had the power to forcefully go riot and petition to get the votes re-counted because they weren't happy with what the results came out as. My opinion on this is, just accept the truth it is what it is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How a Pro-Trump Mob Stormed the U.S. Capitol (Published 2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hundreds of people barreled past fence barricades and clashed with police officers in an attempt to disrupt the certification of the Electoral College results.

# data[].attributes.headline
Courts Suspending Jury Trials as COVID-19 Cases Surge                11/20/20

# data[].attributes.subject
Courts Suspending Jury Trials as COVID-19 Cases Surge                11/20/20

# data[].attributes.body
The Judicial Branch shows how they have power to cancel or declare that courts can not have Trials or hearings cause of Covid-19.
I believe this was a smart and safe decision and it will save many lives instead of putting innocent people at risk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About two dozen U.S. district courts have posted orders that suspend jury trials or grand jury proceedings, and scale back other courthouse activities in response to a sharp nationwide rise in coronavirus (COVID-19) cases. The surge in new court orders in recent weeks marks a significant pause in efforts by federal courts to resume full operations.

Although courts have safely conducted jury trials during the pandemic, and many of the nation's 94 districts are still scheduling jury trials, several judges said that spikes in new diagnoses and hospitalizations have made the convening of juries an unacceptable risk. Some said they expect conditions to worsen as winter hits.

"In order to resume jury trials, we will need to see the key health markers, as measured by the Colorado Department of Health, go down to acceptable levels," said Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer, of the District of Colorado. "I am concerned that the markers will stay high for several months, despite recent efforts by the governor and metro-area mayors to put in place new restrictions."

The orders issued in recent weeks affect courts in most regions of the country, but they are especially pronounced in cold-weather areas in the North, Midwest, and Plains states. Orders suspending jury trials or grand jury sessions have been posted since mid-October on 25 district court websites, while an additional dozen courts have continued suspensions that were already in effect.

On Nov. 5, the District of Colorado suspended all jury and in-person bench trials, as well as all grand jury sessions, until at least Jan. 8. An order signed by Brimmer cited "positivity rates, the number of hospitalizations, and cumulative incidences per 100,000 people."

In addition to health data, some orders cited growing difficulties in getting jurors to hear cases. "Citizens' increasing inability and reluctance to serve on juries is understandable," said a Nov. 6 order signed by Chief Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr., of the Eastern District of Arkansas, "but it creates the possibility that our juries will not reflect a fair cross section of the Eastern District."

In late April, barely a month after many courts had closed their buildings to public visitors due to rising COVID-19 cases, the Judiciary issued a "gating" strategy to guide courts in a gradual reopening. The document encouraged courts to tie their decisions to a range of local COVID-19 data, which at the time were stabilizing and even improving in many states.

From the start, however, the gating mechanism was designed to move in two directions, also guiding courts on how to scale back or close in-person functions if local health data worsened. As new records in daily cases affect most parts of the country at the same time, court leaders have anticipated and responded to the changing landscape.

"We were going through the positive stages of recovery, beginning jury trials in August and so forth, but there was another conversation going on all the time," said Chief Judge James K. Bredar, of the District of Maryland. "We prepared a rollback template before we needed it and thought through the kinds of issues that we might face and need to deal with."

Bredar ordered his court to suspend all in-person court proceedings from Nov. 16 through the end of the month. While the current order only covers two weeks, the court is evaluating whether to suspend in-person proceedings for a longer period.

"Our epidemiologist has taught me that in the context of COVID-19, it's not just the raw numbers that matter. It's the slopes of the curves," Bredar said. "Unfortunately, our numbers are up, and the slope of the curve is not good, whether it's hospitalizations, test positivity, even deaths."

The districts posting recent orders are: Alaska; Arizona; Eastern District of Arkansas; Colorado; Northern, Central and Southern Districts of Illinois; Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana; Kansas; Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky; Maine; Maryland; Minnesota; Western District of Missouri; Nebraska; Nevada; Northern District of Oklahoma; Western District of Pennsylvania; Western District of Texas; Utah; Eastern District of Virginia; Eastern District of Washington; and Western District of Wisconsin.

In addition, the Northern District of New York has postponed jury trials until Jan. 19 without issuing a court order, after discussions among judges, the Federal Public Defender, and the U.S. attorney's office. And the District of Idaho has lowered its courtroom capacity from 50 to 10.

"We have seen a large uptick in cases after each major event, and with Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's coming, it was thought more prudent to suspend jury trials," said John M. Domurad, clerk of court of the Northern District of New York. "We are actively encouraging doing other proceedings remotely."

A few courts have moved in the opposite direction, recently resuming jury trials based on local conditions. And many districts have maintained jury trials throughout the COVID-19 emergency.

"Our court has held nine jury trials and we have had no issues, and no one has gotten sick," said Chief Judge L. Scott Coogler, of the Northern District of Alabama. "But like courts everywhere, we are seeing the increase in COVID-19 cases, and we are being more cautious."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Courts Suspending Jury Trials as COVID-19 Cases Surge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About two dozen U.S. district courts have posted orders that suspend jury trials or grand jury proceedings, and scale back other courthouse activities in response to a sharp nationwide rise in coronavirus (COVID-19) cases. The surge in new court orders in recent weeks marks a significant pause in efforts by federal courts to resume full operations.

# data[].attributes.headline
‘Be There. Will Be Wild!’: Trump All but Circled the Date       | January 6th, 2021 |   - New York Times -   

# data[].attributes.subject
‘Be There. Will Be Wild!’: Trump All but Circled the Date       | January 6th, 2021 |   - New York Times -   

# data[].attributes.body
3. A large group of Trump's supporters were outside yesterday at Trump's speech during the official count of electoral college votes and the official next president was Biden. However, during the count a "protest" more like a violent riot; a mob of Trump Supporters broke into the capital building being very destructive as they all still say that Trump has won the election. Fighting for their right. Before what happened, Trump made a speech to plan a protest with his group of supporters; his supporter population is what they think makes Trump have the rights to be president again.

This is unacceptable and not civilized.

4. I don't think that was necessary or civilized because of violence and back up had to be called and help the people inside. Trump's supporters think the people "them" have the rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Inside Trump supporters' online echo chambers, the chaos of Jan. 6 could be seen coming. People posted their plans to come to Washington - and showed the weapons they would carry.

"We will never concede," President Trump said at a rally on Wednesday. Credit... Pete Marovich for The New York Times

For weeks, President Trump and his supporters had been proclaiming Jan. 6, 2021, as a day of reckoning. A day to gather in Washington to "save America" and "stop the steal" of the election he had decisively lost, but which he still maintained - often through a toxic brew of conspiracy theories - that he had won by a landslide.

And when that day came, the president rallied thousands of his supporters with an incendiary speech. Then a large mob of those supporters, many waving Trump flags and wearing Trump regalia, violently stormed the Capitol to take over the halls of government and send elected officials into hiding, fearing for their safety.

But if the chaos in the Capitol shocked the country, one of the most disturbing aspects of this most disturbing day was that it could be seen coming. The president himself had all but circled it on the nation's calendar.

"Big protest in D.C. on January 6th," Mr. Trump tweeted on Dec. 19, just one of several of his tweets promoting the day. "Be there, will be wild!"

And his supporters took the president at his word.

Image

"If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism," a member of the Red-State Secession group on Facebook posted on Tuesday, the eve of the appointed day, Jan. 6.

Beneath it, dozens of people posted comments that included photographs of the weaponry - including assault rifles - that they said they planned to bring to the rally. There were also comments referring to "occupying" the Capitol and forcing Congress to overturn the November election that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had won - and Mr. Trump had lost.

Renée DiResta, a researcher who studies online movements at the Stanford Internet Observatory, said that the violent disruption at the Capitol on Wednesday was the result of online movements operating in closed social media networks where claims of voter fraud and a stolen election found oxygen.

"This is a demonstration of the very real-world impact of echo chambers," Ms. DiResta said.

The roots of one of the darkest moments in American democracy reached at least as far back as Nov. 4, the day after the presidential election that Mr. Trump would decisively lose to Mr. Biden. On that day, the first Stop the Steal group was formed on Facebook - and it quickly took off, realizing at one point 100 new members every 10 seconds. The group swelled to 320,000 followers before Facebook shut it down.

As hundreds of new Stop the Steal groups continued to pop up, Facebook became more aggressive in shutting them down, prompting some far-right supporters of Mr. Trump - including some involved in militias and conspiracy groups - to move to new, less-restrictive social media sites, including Parler and Gab. And it was on these sites that a movement to organize a pro-Trump protest rally in Washington gathered momentum.

Several right-wing activists, including Ali Alexander, a Republican operative who was previously known as Ali Akbar, began to emerge as leaders of Stop the Steal. Their conspiracy theories and fact-free claims of electoral fraud closely mirrored the same baseless charges being leveled by Mr. Trump.

By mid-December, dozens of lawsuits filed by Trump supporters had failed, often miserably. Then, on Dec. 14, Mr. Biden secured enough votes in the Electoral College to affirm his victory. The last formality before his inauguration on Jan. 20 was the official count by Congress of electoral votes, a pro forma ceremony of paperwork, to be overseen by Vice President Mike Pence.

On Jan. 6.

Mr. Alexander and others seized on the date, urging Trump supporters everywhere to converge onto the Capitol as Congress tended to what historically has been a glorified shuffling of papers - if sometimes infused with grace, as when Vice President Al Gore announced the names of the winner, George W. Bush, and the loser: Al Gore.

The moment has traditionally been seen as another reassurance of the transfer of power in the Republic. But Mr. Trump and his supporters were publicly framing this year's formality as criminal, fraudulent - even treasonous.

As his aides and supporters did what they could to forestall the inevitable - a lawsuit by the Texas congressman Louie Gohmert, a 36-page report alleging election fraud by the Trump adviser Peter Navarro - Mr. Trump continued tweeting.

Dec. 27: "See you in Washington, DC, on January 6th. Don't miss it. Information to follow."

Dec. 30: "JANUARY SIXTH, SEE YOU IN DC!"

Jan. 1: "The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C. will take place at 11:00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!"

That same day, a supporter misspelled the word "cavalry" in tweeting that "The calvary is coming, Mr. President!"

Mr. Trump responded: "A great honor!"

The next day, Jan. 2, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and 11 other Republican senators joined another Republican, Josh Hawley of Missouri - as well as more than 100 Republican members of the House of Representatives - in vowing to object to the certification of Mr. Biden's election.

By now, the extreme fringes of Trump supporters - including the Proud Boys and other groups known to incite violence, as well as conspiracy groups like QAnon - were exploring what they might do on Jan. 6 in Washington. On dedicated chats in Gab they discussed logistics of where to gather and what streets they would take to the Capitol. The Red-State Secession Facebook page even encouraged its 8,000 followers to share the addresses of "enemies," including those for federal judges, members of Congress and well-known progressives.

A sense of the percolating trouble came with a widely circulated video of a Trump supporter confronting Senator Mitt Romney, the Utah Republican and a frequent Trump critic, at Salt Lake International Airport as he awaited a flight Tuesday to Washington. When the supporter asked why he hadn't supported the president's claims of electoral fraud, Mr. Romney said that he would follow the Constitution.

"I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't even voted in legally," the person said as she followed the senator to the gate. "You're a joke, absolute joke, it's a disgusting shame."

Meanwhile, members of the Red-State Secession Facebook page were conversing in the language of insurrection.

Then dawned Jan. 6, the day of reckoning. Thousands gathered in downtown Washington, forming rivers of Trump red that commingled the Trump and American flags. The crowd included between 2,000 and 2,500 members of the Proud Boys, according to Enrique Tarrio, the group's chairman.

Any hope that Mr. Pence would block the congressional confirmation of Mr. Biden's election - thereby acquiescing to immense pressure being applied by Mr. Trump - was dashed before noon. Mr. Pence said in a letter that the vice president did not have such power.

"The presidency belongs to the American people, and to them alone," he wrote.

Then, at noon, Mr. Trump began to deliver a speech to his excited followers.

In the afternoon hours to come, Mr. Trump would excoriate his vice president for not having "the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution." In the hours to come, his supporters, carrying flags and wearing clothes that bore his name, would rush the Capitol in a terrifying swirl of chaos that would force a lockdown and leave one woman shot dead.

Among those who swarmed into the Capitol would be well-known QAnon characters and white supremacists. Jake Angeli, a QAnon supporter known for his painted face and horned hat, roamed the Senate floor. Tim Gionet, a neo-Nazi conspiracy theorist known as "Baked Alaska," would take over a Senate office.

But first came the remarks of the president, delivered on the Ellipse, just south of the White House.

"We will never give up," he said. "We will never concede. It will never happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore."

Mr. Trump concluded his 70-minute exhortation by encouraging everyone to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue to give Republicans at the Capitol "the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country." Then the president of the United States returned to the White House, at a safe distance from the mayhem that was to unfold.

Alan Feuer contributed reporting. Kitty Bennett and Jack Begg contributed research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Be There. Will Be Wild!': Trump All but Circled the Date

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Inside Trump supporters' online echo chambers, the chaos of Jan. 6 could be seen coming. People posted their plans to come to Washington - and showed the weapons they would carry. For weeks, President Trump and his supporters had been proclaiming Jan. 6, 2021, as a day of reckoning.

# data[].attributes.headline
The TikTok Fiasco Reflects the Bankruptcy of Trump’s Foreign Policy New-York-Times September 25, 2020

# data[].attributes.subject
The TikTok Fiasco Reflects the Bankruptcy of Trump’s Foreign Policy New-York-Times September 25, 2020

# data[].attributes.body
3. This is an example of Republicanism because Trump was taking control of walling off foreign apps like Tik Tok.
4. I don't dislike or like this decision because I get that he is trying to protect us but there are millions of people using the app.

# data[].attributes.headline
Warnock on his historic Senate win, divisions in U.S. and lessons from Rep. John Lewis

# data[].attributes.subject
Warnock on his historic Senate win, divisions in U.S. and lessons from Rep. John Lewis

# data[].attributes.body
This is an example, because it was a major vote of the people from Georgia.
I'm personally glad, Georgia wasn't terrible but it needed a change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Senator-elect Reverend Raphael Warnock is "very grateful" to the people of Georgia, who he said "sent a strong and clear message" by handing him a win over incumbent Senator Kelly Loeffler in one of two state runoff elections Tuesday.

"They sent a person who grew up in public housing, one of 12 children in my family - I'm the first college graduate - that I am serving in the United States Senate in a few days, pushes against the grain of so many expectations," he said on "CBS This Morning" Wednesday.

Warnock said he hoped "some young person" would be inspired by his historic victory.

The Georgia Democrat will be the first Black senator to represent his state. Incumbent Republican Kelly Loeffler, an ally of President Trump, was appointed to the seat in 2019 after former Senator Johnny Isakson resigned due to health reasons.

Both Loeffler and fellow incumbent Republican Senator David Perdue have faced accusations of insider trading and profiting off of the coronavirus pandemic. Both were cleared of any charges.

Warnock said Loeffler had not yet called him to concede, but called for unity - particularly in Congress - amid partisan divisions over the legitimacy of the presidential election.

"We really cannot afford to be divided, the problems that face us as a country are large," Warnock said. "They are not insurmountable but they are insurmountable if we don't come together, push past the forces of division and distraction that are going on right now."

He credited a fellow Georgia Democrat, the late Rep. John Lewis, as an example that should be followed "in this dark moment in America."

"Somehow I feel him and other ancestors ushering us along," he said.

As an Atlanta resident, Lewis had attended Warnock's church - the same one where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. preached. The reverend spoke at Lewis' funeral there on July 30.

During his tenure in the House of Representatives Lewis was known as the "conscience of Congress."

Warnock said he had been "thinking a lot" about the civil rights giant, who he said could "bring people together across racial lines, across partisan lines."

"His was a kind of moral authority that was immersed in the struggle of a people who never lost hope and always kept the faith," he said.

Asked if he would continue preaching even after his term as a senator begins, Warnock said he "absolutely" would.

"The last thing I want to do is spend all of my time only talking to politicians. I'm afraid that I might accidentally become one," he said. "I intend to be a public servant, so I'm going to stay connected to my church and larger community."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
2020–21 united states senate special election in georgia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
united states senate election in georgia 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Warnock on his historic Senate win, divisions in U.S. and lessons from Rep. John Lewis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Senator-elect Reverend Raphael Warnock is "very grateful" to the people of Georgia, who he said "sent a strong and clear message" by handing him a win over incumbent Senator Kelly Loeffler in one of two state runoff elections Tuesday.

# data[].attributes.headline
Congress confirms Biden's election, hours after a pro-trump mod stormed the Capitol. - New York Times - 1/7/21

# data[].attributes.subject
Congress confirms Biden's election, hours after a pro-trump mod stormed the Capitol. - New York Times - 1/7/21

# data[].attributes.body
3. This is an example of this principle because Congress is making a decision many American citizens have been waiting to hear, after they've voted.
4. In my opinion this is a good decision, it makes sense, and Trump can finally stop denying it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With less than two weeks before President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. takes the oath of office, it seemed on Thursday that the wheels might finally be coming off the Trump administration.

In 24 hours, Congress reconvened in a Capitol breached and battered by a pro-Trump mob, formalized Mr. Biden's victory over the objections of more than 100 Republican lawmakers and found itself on the brink of impeaching President Trump a second time.

A growing cohort of legislators, including at least one Republican, expressed support for stripping Mr. Trump of his powers under the 25th Amendment, even as Vice President Mike Pence - who would have to lead that process - was said to oppose the idea.

On Capitol Hill, the number of Republicans willing to publicly defend Mr. Trump dwindled. One, Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, said he supported the invocation of the 25th Amendment; another, Representative Steve Stivers of Ohio, said he "would not oppose" the move if cabinet members decided to proceed.

Several high-ranking administration officials announced that they would resign including two cabinet members, a late and purely symbolic gesture by people who had stood by Mr. Trump even as he promoted baseless claims of election fraud and repeatedly refused to accept his loss.

Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, claimed that "the entire White House" abhorred the violence that Mr. Trump himself had incited, then walked off without answering any questions. She spoke for two minutes in the White House press briefing room and did not mention the president by name, or his speech that set the violence at the Capitol in motion.

All of this unfolded amid the strange silence of a Trump-free Twitter, with the president's account temporarily locked after he tweeted praise for the mob that had ransacked the Capitol, leading to at least four deaths.

Mr. Trump returned to Twitter late on Thursday after his suspension lifted and he posted a two-minute video that addressed the violence and acknowledged that "a new administration" would be sworn in on Jan. 20.

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.

A United States Capitol Police officer died Thursday night from injuries sustained when he engaged with a pro-Trump mob that descended on the U.S. Capitol the day before.

Officer Brian D. Sicknick died at about 9:30 p.m. on Thursday, the Capitol Police said in a statement. He had been with the agency since 2008.

Mr. Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday and "was injured while physically engaging with protesters," the agency's statement said, although officials didn't immediately elaborate on the nature of his injuries or how he interacted with the crowd. After sustaining the injuries, Mr. Sicknick returned to his division office, collapsed, and was taken to the hospital.

"The entire U.S.C.P. department expresses its deepest sympathies to Officer Sicknick's family and friends on their loss, and mourns the loss of a friend and colleague," the statement said. News outlets had prematurely reported on his death earlier in the day while he was apparently still on life support.

Homicide investigators from the Metropolitan Police Department are involved in the case.

Early Friday morning, Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, a Democrat who runs the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the budget for the Capitol Police, said in a Twitter post that his heart was breaking over Mr. Sicknick's death.

"This tragic loss is a reminder of the bravery of the law enforcement who protect us every day," Mr. Ryan wrote.

Mr. Sicknick's death brings the death toll from Wednesday's mayhem to five. One of the people participating in the pro-Trump rampage, Ashli Babbitt, was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer inside the building as she climbed through a broken window leading to the Speaker's Lobby. Three other people died after experiencing apparent medical emergencies in the area around the Capitol, the police said.

Officials have said that some 50 police officers were injured as the mob swarmed barricades, threw objects, battered doors, smashed windows and overwhelmed some of the officers who tried to resist the advancing crowd.

Capitol Police reported 14 arrests during the incursion, including two people who were detained for assaulting a police officer. Local police arrested dozens of others, mostly for unlawful entry and violations of the city's Wednesday night curfew.

Steven Sund, the Capitol Police chief, handed in his resignation on Thursday after facing pressure from congressional leaders. The sergeants-at-arms of the House and Senate also resigned.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos submitted her resignation in a letter to President Trump on Thursday, saying she would step down the next day over the rampage at the Capitol by his supporters.

Ms. DeVos joins a growing exodus of administration officials in the final days of the Trump administration. She is the second cabinet-level official to step down; Elaine Chao, the transportation secretary, also resigned on Thursday.

"We should be highlighting and celebrating your administration's many accomplishments on behalf of the American people," Ms. DeVos wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The New York Times. "Instead, we are left to clean up the mess caused by violent protesters overrunning the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to undermine the people's business."

"That behavior was unconscionable for our country," she added. "There is no mistaking the impact your rhetoric had on the situation, and it is the inflection point for me."

Ms. DeVos was one of the first cabinet secretaries to condemn the violent mob on Capitol Hill.

"The peaceful transfer of power is what separates American representative democracy from banana republics," Ms. DeVos said in a statement posted to Twitter on Wednesday evening, hours after the storming of the Capitol. "The work of the people must go on."

Ms. DeVos was one of the most effective, polarizing and longest-serving Cabinet members in the Trump administration. She was seen as fiercely loyal to the president, at least publicly.

In her resignation letter, Ms. DeVos praised President Trump for championing her school choice agenda, in which she sought to bolster voucher programs that allow students to seek alternatives to public schools. She also saluted one aspect of his coronavirus response, saying that she believed "history will show we were correct in our repeated urging of and support for schools reopening this year."

But it was loyalty to her constitutional oath, Ms. DeVos said, that had prompted her to resign.

"Impressionable children are watching all of this, and they are learning from us," she said. "They must know from us that America is greater than what transpired yesterday."

Ms. DeVos's resignation drew cheers from her opponents, particularly teacher's unions and groups that had forcefully opposed her rollbacks of civil rights protections for children of color and transgender students.

Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, issued a two-word statement: "Good Riddance."

But other critics praised her for protesting the president's actions.

"This doesn't make up for all of her bad decisions, and the harm she has done to education reform, but still, she deserves kudos for this one," tweeted MichaelJ. Petrilli, the president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative research organization.

Video

Back

transcript

Trump Pledges Orderly Transfer of Power

President Trump said a day after a mob stormed the Capitol that a "new administration" would be sworn in after a "smooth, orderly, seamless transition of power."

Now Congress has certified the results. A new administration will be inaugurated on Jan. 20. My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power. This moment calls for healing and reconciliation. 2020 has been a challenging time for our people.

President Trump came the closest he has so far to a concession statement on Thursday in a videotaped address from the White House, a day after he had helped steer his supporters toward the Capitol, where they rioted and took over the building.

After his Twitter account was locked on Wednesday and he was unable to post for nearly 24 hours, the president said that a "new administration" would be sworn in on Jan. 20 and that "serving as your president has been the honor of my lifetime."

He also condemned the violence that came shortly after he told his supporters to fight against the election results, falsely claimed that the vote had been stolen from him and said that Vice President Mike Pence could overturn the outcome.

"This moment calls for healing and reconciliation," Mr. Trump said, reading from a teleprompter.

In his opening, Mr. Trump claimed that he "immediately deployed the National Guard" to "expel the intruders," despite accounts from people familiar with the events saying he had resisted those calls and that it was, in fact, Mr. Pence who had ordered the National Guard to deploy.

"The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy," Mr. Trump said, a day after he had ended a video telling the rioters to "go home" but ended with, "I love you."

"You do not represent our country, and to those who broke the law, you will pay," he said in the latest video.

The video was vital in the sense that Mr. Trump's ardent supporters will only accept his words, not anyone else's, and officials throughout government are concerned about unrest for the next 13 days around the country. But the president has a long history of recording such videos only to undermine his own remarks a short time later.

"Now tempers must be cooled, and calm restored," he said. "We must get on with the business of America."

Three top security officials on Capitol Hill are stepping down a day after a mob of pro-Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, congressional leaders said on Thursday.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California announced during her weekly news conference that Paul D. Irving, the House sergeant-at arms, intended to resign from his position, and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said Thursday evening he had accepted the resignation of Michael C. Stenger, the Senate sergeant-at-arms.

News of Mr. Stenger's resignation came after Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, said he would fire Mr. Stenger as soon as Democrats took the majority.

Steven Sund, the Capitol Police chief, will also leave his position on Jan. 16 after Ms. Pelosi called for his resignation, saying "Mr. Sund, he hasn't even called us since this happened." Mr. Sund, in his letter of resignation, said he would use his remaining paid sick leave - 440 hours, about 55 days - after departing.

The swift departure of the top three security officials just two weeks before a presidential inauguration reflected bipartisan outrage over the law enforcement failure to prevent a mob of violent protesters from storming the Capitol as lawmakers debated the formal certification of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s victory. The sergeants-at-arms are responsible for security in their respective chambers and related office buildings, while Mr. Sund oversaw more than 1,800 Capitol Police personnel.

It was unclear immediately who would replace Mr. Stenger and Mr. Sund. In his statement, Mr. McConnell said Jennifer Hemingway, the deputy sergeant-at-arms, would serve as acting sergeant-at-arms.

Lawmakers in both chambers and from both parties vowed on Thursday to find out how those responsible for Capitol security had allowed a violent mob to infiltrate the Capitol. House Democrats announced a "robust" investigation into the law enforcement breakdown.

Mr. McConnell said in a separate statement that "a painstaking investigation and thorough review" were needed after the events of Wednesday, which he described as "a massive failure of institutions, protocols, and planning that are supposed to protect the first branch of our federal government."

Mr. McConnell added that "the ultimate blame for yesterday lies with the unhinged criminals who broke down doors, trampled our nation's flag, fought with law enforcement, and tried to disrupt our democracy, and with those who incited them.

"But this fact does not and will not preclude our addressing the shocking failures in the Capitol's security posture and protocols."

The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, the American flagship of Rupert Murdoch's newspaper empire, denounced President Trump on Thursday for inciting a mob of his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol, declaring his behavior "impeachable" and encouraging Mr. Trump to resign his office to prevent a second impeachment by the Democratic-controlled House.

In an unsigned article titled " Donald Trump's Final Days, " the Journal's editorial page - a bellwether for the conservative establishment - excoriated the president for "an assault on the constitutional process of transferring power after an election" and said "this week has probably finished him as a serious political figure."

"If Mr. Trump wants to avoid a second impeachment, his best path would be to take personal responsibility and resign," the Journal wrote, concluding, "It is best for everyone, himself included, if he goes away quietly."

The Journal's editorial page, led by the editor Paul Gigot, has criticized Mr. Trump in the past, sometimes harshly. But its latest salvo was a striking repudiation of the president by a news outlet controlled by Mr. Murdoch, whose Fox News cable network is home to several of Mr. Trump's most loyal and longstanding media defenders.

Mr. Murdoch's publicists had previously indicated that he did not expect Mr. Trump to recapture the presidency, and another Murdoch publication, The New York Post, trumpeted President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s victory even as Mr. Trump refused to accept the results.

The Post, in its own unsigned editorial on Thursday, stopped short of arguing that Mr. Trump should prematurely exit the White House, instead urging his aides "to stay and stop the crazy." But given Mr. Murdoch's influence on his publications' political views, the Journal's blunt words for Mr. Trump - who once craved Mr. Murdoch's approval - signal that the mogul is now looking ahead to the start of the Biden presidency.

A day after members of Congress were relocated to secure locations as a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, raising fears about widespread transmission of the coronavirus, a House member revealed on Thursday that he had tested positive for the virus.

Representative Jake LaTurner, Republican of Kansas, announced on Twitter - hours after sharing space with colleagues on the House floor throughout a late-night session to confirm President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s Electoral College victory - that he had received a positive test, prompting further concern that the virus might have spread more widely.

While in lockdown on Wednesday, Representative Susan Wild, Democrat of Pennsylvania, told CBS News by phone that "about half" of the people sheltering in the secure location in the Capitol complex had refused to wear masks, even though masks were made available. When asked which lawmakers had declined to cover their faces, Ms. Wild said they had been "people from the Republican delegation."

"It's what I would call a Covid superspreader event," she said. "It's exactly the kind of situation that we've been told by the medical doctors not to be in, you know - close proximity - especially with people who aren't wearing masks."

It was not immediately clear whether Mr. LaTurner had been in the same location as Ms. Wild, though Ms. Wild said roughly 300 to 400 people were being held in the room with her.

As the violent mob stormed the Capitol, groups of lawmakers were kept together at secure locations, while others reported being stranded for a time in offices and hideaways throughout the building. Videos of the siege showed hundreds of members of the mob, most of them unmasked, clashing with Capitol Police officers and journalists inside the Capitol and on the surrounding grounds.

Mr. LaTurner's announcement came after two other Republicans, Representatives Kevin Brady and Kay Granger, both from Texas, had tested positive for the virus earlier in the week. Both Mr. Brady and Ms. Granger were not in the Capitol on Wednesday because they were in quarantine.

Video

The top Democrats in Congress called on Thursday for President Trump's immediate removal from office for his role in urging on the violent mob that overtook the Capitol a day before, disrupting the ratification of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s electoral victory.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York called on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment, which allows him and the cabinet to wrest the power of the presidency from Mr. Trump.

If Mr. Pence declines to act, they said, Democrats were prepared to impeach Mr. Trump for a second time.

"While it's only 13 days left, any day can be a horror show for America," Ms. Pelosi said, calling Mr. Trump's actions on Wednesday a "seditious act."

The speaker's plan was announced during an extraordinary news conference in the reclaimed Capitol, hours after the building was overrun by a mob of Trump supporters who temporarily halted Congress's confirmation of Mr. Biden's victory in the presidential election. Speaking to reporters, Ms. Pelosi singled out members of the cabinet by name, asking why they would not intervene.

"Are they ready to say for the next 13 days this dangerous man can assault our democracy?" Ms. Pelosi said of the cabinet.

She said she hoped to have an answer from Mr. Pence by the end of the day on whether he would attempt to use the 25th Amendment. The two leaders tried to call the vice president directly on Thursday but were left on a holding line for 20 minutes without him picking up.

It was unclear how quickly Democrats could move to impeach Mr. Trump. There is no clear precedent for putting a former official on trial in the Senate, and with only 13 days left in his term, it was not certain Democrats could actually accomplish such a complicated and politically fraught process on a compressed timetable.

Mr. Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, said: "What happened at the U.S. Capitol yesterday was an insurrection against the United States, incited by the president. This president should not hold office one day longer."

Andrew Bates, a spokesman for the Biden transition, did not take a stand on the 25th Amendment or impeachment.

"President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris are focused on their duty - preparing to take office on Jan. 20 - and will leave it to Vice President Pence, the cabinet and the Congress to act as they see fit," Mr. Bates said. "In the meantime, Donald Trump must stop blocking cooperation with the transition that could harm the readiness of the United States government to overcome the pandemic and the other crises he has worsened."

Vice President Mike Pence is opposed to a call by Democrats in Congress and some Republicans to invoke the 25th Amendment to strip President Trump of his powers before his term ends, a person close to the vice president said.

It is unclear when Mr. Pence will alert Congress of his position. But the decision by Mr. Pence is said to be supported by several Trump cabinet officials. Those officials, a senior Republican said, viewed the effort as likely to add to the current chaos in Washington rather than deter it.

All but one of President Trump's cabinet secretaries condemned the violent mob that stormed the Capitol building on Wednesday. Some pointed to the president for inciting the violence, and two cabinet members resigned. Here's what they said:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in a statement released hours after the melee, said,"The storming of the U.S. Capitol today is unacceptable. Lawlessness and rioting - here or around the world - is always unacceptable."

"The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that those responsible for this attack on our government and the rule of law face the full consequences of their actions.

"We will continue to methodically assess evidence, charge crimes and make arrests in the coming days and weeks to ensure that those responsible are held accountable under the law."

"Yesterday's violence at the Capitol was reprehensible and contrary to the tenets of the United States Constitution."

"The peaceful transfer of power is what separates American representative democracy from banana republics.

"The work of the people must go on."

"Our country experienced a traumatic and entirely avoidable event as supporters of the president stormed the Capitol building following a rally he addressed," Ms. Chao wrote in a letter posted on Twitter. "It has deeply troubled me in a way that I simply cannot set aside."

"What transpired yesterday was tragic and sickening," Mr. Wolf wrote in a statement posted on Twitter. "We now see some supporters of the president using violence as a means to achieve political ends."

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin will remain in his post and carry out his responsibilities until the inauguration, according to a person familiar with his thinking. Mr. Mnuchin, who was traveling in Israel on Thursday, condemned the violence but made no mention of the president. "These actions are unacceptable and must stop," he said.

Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette condemned what he called a "tragic event in our Nation's Capitol."

"Politically-motivated violence, regardless of ideology or cause, must always be condemned in the strongest possible terms," he wrote on Twitter. "No American should excuse wanton disregard for one of our Nation's most sacred institutions."

"I am disgusted by the attack on the Capitol we witnessed today. Physical violence and the desecration of this hallowed symbol of our democracy must end."

"Violence is never an appropriate response regardless of legitimate concerns. Please remember: if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."

"Today's violence and lawlessness at the U.S. Capitol cannot and will not be tolerated."

"Thank you U.S. Park Police for always fulfilling your selfless duties to safeguard lives and protect our symbols of democracy."

"I'm very discouraged by the people who were there that felt compelled to breach the Capitol and do the things they did."

"We're going to go forward as America. We have a new president."

Some Republican lawmakers on Thursday joined a chorus of Democrats calling for the removal of President Trump from office for his role in inciting a riotous mob to storm the U.S. Capitol.

They did not, however, say if they would support impeaching the president, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi had threatened if Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump's cabinet failed to strip the president of his powers by invoking the 25th Amendment.

Representative Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois and the first Republican lawmaker to call for invoking the 25th Amendment after the riot, said that Mr. Trump had "abdicated his duty to protect the American people" by inciting an "insurrection."

"The president has become unmoored, not just from his duty, or even his oath, but from reality itself," Mr. Kinzinger, an early opponent of efforts to subvert the results of the election, said in a video posted on Twitter. "It is time to invoke the 25th Amendment and end this nightmare."

Gov. Larry Hogan, Republican of Maryland and a frequent critic of President Trump within his party, echoed those calls.

"I think there's no question that America would be better off if the president would resign or be removed from office," Mr. Hogan said in a news conference addressing the violence. "Enough of the lies. Enough of the hate. Enough of the total dysfunction. Just, enough."

Representative Steve Stivers, Republican of Ohio, said that he also supported stripping Mr. Trump of his powers through the 25th Amendment. He did not rule out supporting impeachment but argued that Congress could not remove the president through the impeachment process in the time remaining in Mr. Trump's term.

"The cabinet decides on the 25th Amendment, and if the cabinet decided to do that, I would not oppose it," Mr. Stivers, a former chairman of the House Republican campaign arm, said in a television appearance. "I do not believe that an impeachment can happen in 13 days."

Video

Back

transcript

McEnany Calls for Full Prosecution for Rioters

Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, said on Thursday the Trump administration condemned the violence at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters on Wednesday and called for their prosecution.

Let me be clear: The violence we saw yesterday in our nation's capital was appalling, reprehensible and antithetical to the American way. We condemn it, the president and this administration, in the strongest possible terms. It is unacceptable. And those that broke the law should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. What we saw yesterday was a group of violent rioters undermining the legitimate First Amendment rights of the many thousands who came to peacefully have their voices heard in our nation's capital. Those who violently besieged our Capitol are the opposite of everything this administration stands for. The core value of our administration is the idea that all citizens have the right to live in safety, peace and freedom. Those who are working in this building are working to ensure an orderly transition of power. Now it is time for America to unite, to come together, to reject the violence that we have seen. We are one American people under God.

Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, read a statement to reporters on Thursday "on behalf of the entire White House" condemning the violence by Trump supporters at the Capitol complex a day earlier in "the strongest possible terms."

"Those who violently besieged our Capitol are the opposite of everything this administration stands for," she said, though she made no mention of President Trump or his speech that set the violence in motion.

The president's silence on the violent mob stretched to nearly 24 hours as Ms. McEnany spoke for two minutes, then immediately left the White House's press briefing room without questions from reporters.

She called for full prosecution of those who breached the Capitol. "What we saw yesterday was a group of violent rioters undermining the legitimate First Amendment rights" of Trump supporters who had gathered by the National Mall to protest the results of the election, which Mr. Trump has repeatedly declared was stolen from him.

The Justice Department said on Thursday that it would not rule out pursuing charges against President Trump for his possible role a day earlier in encouraging a mob of his supporters to march on the Capitol just before thousands stormed the building.

"We are looking at all actors, not only the people who went into the building," Michael R. Sherwin, the U.S. attorney in Washington, told reporters.

Mr. Sherwin was asked whether such targets would include Mr. Trump, who exhorted supporters during a rally near the White House, telling them that they could never "take back our country with weakness." Propelled by Mr. Trump's baseless claims of election irregularities, the protesters had gathered to demonstrate against Congress' certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s Electoral College victory and moved on to the Capitol after the president's rally.

Mr. Sherwin said that he stood by his statement. "We're looking at all actors," he said. "If the evidence fits the elements of a crime, they're going to be charged."

His comments were an extraordinary invocation of the rule of law against a president who has repeatedly pressured law enforcement officials to advance his personal and political agendas. The Justice Department generally views that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.

Mr. Trump is also said to have discussed in recent weeks the possibility of pardoning himself, an unprecedented and untested use of presidential power, but it is uncertain whether that would ultimately protect him.

Mr. Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., also told the crowd on Wednesday that Republicans in Congress should back Mr. Trump's efforts to undo the election result: "We're coming for you," he said of lawmakers who refused. And Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump's personal lawyer, said that to win the election, his supporters would need to engage in "trial by combat" against Democrats.

Federal prosecutors on Thursday filed their first charges stemming from the riot, charging one man with assaulting a police officer and another with illegally possessing a loaded handgun.

Both criminal complaints were filed in Federal District Court in Washington. The city's Metropolitan Police Department had announced earlier that its officers had arrested nearly 70 people at the riot on charges that included unlawful entry, gun possession and assault.

In a separate statement, the Capitol Police announced the arrests of 14 other people on Thursday.

The first federal complaint accused Mark J. Leffingwell of assaulting a Capitol Police officer around 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday in a hallway in the Senate wing of the Capitol building. The officer, Daniel Amendola, said in the complaint that Mr. Leffingwell was part of a crowd that had "breached a window." When Officer Amendola sought to stop him and others from entering the building any further, Mr. Leffingwell punched him repeatedly in the head and chest, according to the complaint. Mr. Leffingwell then "spontaneously apologized."

Prosecutors also unsealed charges against a Maryland resident, Christopher Alberts, accusing him of illegally carrying a black Taurus 9-millimeter pistol at the riot. Officers first saw Mr. Alberts leaving the Capitol complex around 7:30 p.m. and noticed "a bulge" on his right hip. When they stopped Mr. Alberts, the officers found the pistol, which had one round in the chamber and a magazine filled with 12 rounds, according to the complaint. They also discovered that he was wearing a bulletproof vest and had a gas mask in his backpack.

After he was taken into custody, the complaint said, Mr. Alberts told the police that he had the weapon for "personal protection" and did not intend to harm anyone.

Early Friday, a North Carolina pastor who is a descendant of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee condemned the rioters who carried the Confederate flag with them on Wednesday when they stormed the U.S. Capitol.

The Rev. Robert W. Lee IV, a great-great-great-great-nephew of the general, said that images of the flag, including one of rioters who scaled a memorial to Ulysses S. Grant, the commander of the Union army who later became president, saddened him.

"The pinnacle of the Confederacy was January 6, 2021, and not during the 1860s," Rev. Lee said in an interview. "This is truly nothing short of an attack on our democracy. It is not better than what my ancestor committed all those years ago."

.

John F. Kelly, a former chief of staff to President Trump who has criticized him on several occasions since leaving his post two years ago, said on Thursday that if he were still in the cabinet, he would vote to invoke the 25th Amendment and declare Mr. Trump "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."

"I don't think it'll happen, but I think the cabinet should meet and discuss this, because the behavior yesterday and the weeks and months before that has just been outrageous from the president," Mr. Kelly said on CNN. "And what happened on Capitol Hill yesterday is a direct result of his poisoning the minds of people with the lies and the frauds."

When the CNN host Jake Tapper asked whether he would support invoking the 25th Amendment if he were in the cabinet, Mr. Kelly paused for a moment before saying, "Yes, I would."

Mr. Trump's incitement of the mob that stormed the Capitol on Wednesday led multiple administration officials, including Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, to resign and has drawn criticism even from Republicans who previously stood by the president.

But given that members of the Trump administration will be out of a job in 13 days and that Democrats will control the White House and both chambers of Congress, the resignations and rebukes have little, if any, practical significance.

In his interview on CNN, Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Trump simply did not listen to dissent within his administration.

"You don't survive on telling this president the truth," he said. "Not for very long, anyway."

Michelle Obama, the former first lady, called on social media companies to permanently ban President Trump on Thursday in the aftermath of a violent mob he incited at the Capitol.

"Now is the time for Silicon Valley to stop enabling this monstrous behavior - and go even further than they have already by permanently banning this man from their platforms," Mrs. Obama wrote in a lengthy statement posted on Twitter. "If we have any hope of improving this nation, now is the time for swift and serious consequences."

Earlier on Thursday, Facebook said it would block Mr. Trump on its platforms at least until the end of his term on Jan. 20, as the mainstream online world moved forcefully to limit the president after years of inaction.

Mrs. Obama also highlighted the contrast in police response to the mob at the Capitol, when compared with the Black Lives Matter protests that were met with brutal force last year.

"In city after city, day after day, we saw peaceful protesters met with brute force. We saw cracked skulls and mass arrests, law enforcement pepper spraying its way through a peaceful demonstration for a presidential photo op," she wrote, adding that seeing the inequality of force used was "so painful. It hurts."

"Yesterday made it painfully clear that certain Americans are, in fact, allowed to denigrate the flag and symbols of our nation," Mrs. Obama wrote. "They've just got to look the right way."

President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. picked Gina M. Raimondo, the governor of Rhode Island, as his commerce secretary and Mayor Martin J. Walsh of Boston as his labor secretary, as he moves to fill key economic positions that are expected to play a significant role in his administration.

Mr. Biden also named Isabel Guzman, a small business advocate and former Obama administration official, to run the Small Business Administration.

Mr. Walsh, 53, led Boston's powerful Building and Construction Trades Council for two years before winning his race for mayor in 2013 with strong backing from organized labor. He is expected to work on fulfilling Mr. Biden's promise to implement stronger worker protections amid the pandemic and to boost worker pay.

It will fall to the next labor secretary to revisit a number of key regulations issued by the department under President Trump, including a rule that makes it harder for employees of contractors and franchises to recover stolen wages from parent companies when their direct employers lack the resources to do so.

Ms. Raimondo, a moderate Democrat with a background in the financial industry, has served as governor since 2015. She is seen as a relatively traditional choice for commerce secretary, a sprawling post that oversees relations with the business community but also technology regulation, weather monitoring and the gathering of economic data, among other duties.

As governor of Rhode Island, Ms. Raimondo introduced training programs, cut taxes and eliminated regulations to support businesses. She clashed with unions but ultimately found compromise as she overhauled the state pension plan.

Before running for office, she was a founding employee at the investment firm Village Ventures, which was backed by Bain Capital, and co-founded her own venture capital firm, Point Judith Capital. Ms. Raimondo has a law degree from Yale University and earned a doctorate from Oxford University, where she was a Rhodes scholar.

As commerce secretary, Ms. Raimondo will control an agency that was at the forefront of an economic fight with China during the Trump administration.

A sprawling agency with nearly 50,000 employees, the Commerce Department has used its vast power to curtail the access of Chinese companies to the American market and technology. The department also played a role in levying significant tariffs on trading partners on the basis of national security, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

It carried out investigations into the effect of imported steel and aluminum on the domestic industry, which led to President Trump imposing global metal tariffs. It also investigated whether imports of cars and car parts, uranium and titanium sponges posed a threat to national security. While those investigations determined that imports harmed American interests, the Trump administration did not impose tariffs.

Mr. Biden has criticized Mr. Trump for imposing national-security-related tariffs on America's closest allies, suggesting he may ultimately choose to roll back such an authority.

Former Attorney General William P. Barr said Thursday that President Trump betrayed his office by encouraging a mob of supporters to intimidate Congress into overturning the election results by storming the Capitol, joining former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in blaming Mr. Trump for the violence.

Mr. Barr, who stepped down from office last month under pressure from Mr. Trump, said in a statement to The Associated Press that the president's conduct betrayed "his office and supporters" and that "orchestrating a mob to pressure Congress is inexcusable."

Mr. Barr was widely seen as the cabinet member who did the most to advance the president's political agenda, and the statement was unusually strong given Mr. Barr's praise for the president in his departure letter even as Mr. Trump pressured the Justice Department to help his effort to overturn the election results.

Immediately after a violent mob of Mr. Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol on Wednesday, Mr. Mattis was among the first former cabinet officials to directly blame Mr. Trump, calling the attack "an effort to subjugate American democracy by mob rule" that was "fomented by Mr. Trump."

Former Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and retired Gen. Joseph Dunford, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Mr. Trump, also criticized the politicians who had supported Mr. Trump's claims and spread false information about the election.

Current law enforcement officials have not gone so far as to acknowledge Mr. Trump's role in encouraging the attack.

The acting attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, called the violence at the Capitol "an intolerable attack on a fundamental institution of our democracy," and said that law enforcement officials were working to find, arrest and charge rioters. And the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, said that the bureau would "pursue those involved in criminal activity" during the mayhem.

Also on Thursday, the head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, Eric S. Dreiband, told his staff that he was leaving the Trump administration effective the following day. While many department leaders left after the election, his abrupt announcement took some people who worked for him by surprise.

He did not cite a reason or say whether his departure was tied to Mr. Trump's conduct and the riots, but he quoted Martin Luther King Jr. at length, saying: "Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be."

The Pentagon is deploying more than 5,000 additional National Guard troops from six states to Washington, and the troops will stay through the inauguration later this month, a senior Pentagon official said Thursday.

After pleas from Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington, the Pentagon mobilized all 1,100 available District of Columbia National Guard troops on Wednesday afternoon to confront the violent mob that had stormed the Capitol. About 340 D.C. National Guard had been called up earlier in the week to help with crowd and traffic control.

An additional 5,100 Guard troops from Virginia, Maryland, New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey are expected to arrive in Washington over the next several days and remain through Jan. 20 for President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s inauguration, the senior official said.

That will bring the total number of Guard troops in the capital to 6,200.

Pentagon officials said that the additional Guard personnel would support local police and federal law enforcement officers.

In June, some 5,000 Guard troops - from the District of Columbia and a dozen states - were rushed to the streets of the capital to help in the crackdown on mostly peaceful protesters and occasional looters after the killing of George Floyd in police custody.

Elaine Chao, the secretary of transportation, is resigning after President Trump's incitement of a mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, she announced in a letter posted on Twitter.

Ms. Chao, who is married to Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, is the first cabinet official to join a growing exodus of administration officials in the final days of the Trump administration - largely symbolic resignations given that most would have been out of jobs with the change of administration anyway.

In the letter, she said that she would leave her post on Jan. 11 and that her office would cooperate with President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s nominee for transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg.

"Yesterday, our country experienced a traumatic and entirely avoidable event as supporters of the president stormed the Capitol building following a rally he addressed," Ms. Chao wrote. "As I'm sure is the case with many of you, it has deeply troubled me in a way that I simply cannot set aside."

Ms. Chao decided to quit on Wednesday as she watched the events at the Capitol unfold on television, but held off until speaking with her department staff, according to a person with direct knowledge of her actions.

She briefly discussed the matter with Mr. McConnell when he returned, exhausted, from the Capitol at about 5 a.m. Thursday, then consulted with him again after he had rested. Both agreed it was the right thing to do, the person said, adding that one of her primary concerns was staying on long enough to ensure a smooth transition to Mr. Buttigieg, whom she plans to speak with on Friday.

Nicole Perlroth and Alan Rappeport contributed reporting.

Video

Back

transcript

Biden Introduces Attorney General Nominee in Wake of Capitol Riot

While introducing his nominee for attorney general, Merrick Garland, President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. said the nation needed to restore the independence and integrity of the Justice Department.

"What we witnessed yesterday was not dissent, it was not disorder, it was not protest - it was chaos. They weren't protesters - don't dare call them protesters - they were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists. It's that basic, it's that simple. I wish we could say we couldn't see it coming. But that isn't true. We could see it coming. The past four years, we've had a president who has made his contempt for our democracy, our Constitution, the rule of law clear in everything he has done. We need to restore the honor, the integrity, the independence of the Department of Justice in this nation that's been so badly damaged. And so many former leaders of that department in both parties have so testified and stated that. I want to be clear to those who lead this department, who you will serve. You won't work for me. You are not the president or the vice president's lawyer. Your loyalty is not to me. It is to the law, the Constitution, the people of this nation, to guarantee justice." "As everyone who watched yesterday's events in Washington now understands, if they did not understand before, the rule of law is not just some lawyer's turn of phrase. It is the very foundation of our democracy."

President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Thursday introduced his pick for attorney general, Judge Merrick B. Garland, declaring that the longtime federal jurist would serve as an impartial arbiter of justice and not as the president's "personal attorney" - a pointed rebuke of President Trump's approach.

Judge Garland will be "the people's lawyer," Mr. Biden declared at an event in Wilmington, Del.

"You won't work for me," Mr. Biden said of the leaders of his Justice Department. "You are not the president or the vice president's lawyer. Your loyalty is not to me. It's to the law, the Constitution, the people of this nation, to guarantee justice."

Mr. Biden also introduced three other nominees for top positions at the Justice Department, which experienced a period of increased politicization under Mr. Trump. And he began by angrily denouncing the riot at the Capitol on Wednesday incited by the outgoing president.

Calling it "one of the darkest days in the history of our nation," Mr. Biden forcefully laid blame at the feet of Mr. Trump, pointing to his conduct not just in the aftermath of the November election, but over the past four years.

"What we witnessed yesterday was not dissent," Mr. Biden said. "It was not disorder. It was not protest. It was chaos. They weren't protesters. Don't dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists. It's that basic. It's that simple."

"And I wish we could say we couldn't see it coming," he continued. "But that isn't true. We could see it coming."

Mr. Biden also spoke of how the rioters were treated by law enforcement. "No one can tell me that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesting yesterday, they wouldn't have been treated very, very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol," he said. "We all know that's true, and it is unacceptable. Totally unacceptable."

The position of attorney general had been the most prominent role in Mr. Biden's cabinet that was still unfilled with Inauguration Day approaching.

Judge Garland currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. President Barack Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, but Senate Republicans blocked his nomination.

"As everyone who watched yesterday's events in Washington now understands, if they did not understand before, the rule of law is not just some lawyer's turn of phrase," Judge Garland said at the event with Mr. Biden. "It is the very foundation of our democracy."

The events of the last 48 hours - Tuesday's Democratic takeover of the Senate and Wednesday's mob violence at the Capitol by President Trump supporters - fundamentally altered the trajectory of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s presidency two weeks before his hand touches the bible.

Once chatty, malaprop-prone and accessible, Mr. Biden has transformed himself into a figure of distance and dignity, taking advantage of the spotlight-hogging futility of Mr. Trump's attempts to overturn the election. He has been able to quietly assemble a team and plan for the battles ahead.

The violence, in the view of several people in Mr. Biden's immediate orbit, has mellowed the intensity of Republican opposition to him, especially among the members of the chamber most eager to distance themselves from Mr. Trump's antics.

Most notable among them: the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, who had defined unseating President Obama as his primary goal at this point in 2009; and Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South Carolina who has buddied up to both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump over the years.

There is nothing quite like huddling behind barricaded doors with an armed mob roaming the hallways to rekindle the dying embers of bipartisanship. But nobody expects it to last.

Mr. Trump incited the riot and Mr. Biden, a senator for nearly four decades, is universally regarded as a guardian of the institution - which matters a great deal to people like Mr. McConnell.

What does this mean in the short term? For starters, it is likely to diminish (but not eliminate) opposition to Mr. Biden's cabinet picks, although big fights loom.

Mr. Graham on Wednesday, for instance, praised Merrick Garland, the president-elect's choice for attorney general, and other senators have signaled a less combative approach that has not been seen since the days before social media provocation dominated the discourse.

The landscape was dramatically altered even before the riot, with the double triumph of the two Democrats, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, in the Georgia Senate runoff elections on Tuesday.

The Biden team had quietly downplayed the idea that they would actually win - in part out of superstition, several jittery Democratic aides suggested in the days leading up to the election.

In the most basic sense, the addition of two Democrats means Mr. Biden needs fewer Republican votes and, just as important, has control over which bills are sent to the floor, a major lever of power unappreciated outside of Washington.

But the pressure from Mr. Biden's left flank to use these powers will be great. Democrats fear a Republican takeover of the House in 2022, and a similar possibility looms in the deadlocked upper chamber.

Many in Mr. Biden's circle believe he has two years to jam through Democratic priorities, starting with his pledge to pass a $2,000 payment to Americans to ease the economic hardship of the pandemic. That tension - whether to go it alone or wait for compromise - is likely to define his presidency.

"Biden will say all the public things about how he needs to get Republican support, but the truth is that this fundamentally changes the dynamic," said David Krone, former chief of staff to former Senator Harry Reid, the last Democratic majority leader. "Democrats now control the floor. So he can bring up all kinds of bills that would have been blocked by the Republicans, and force votes on big bills - like a major infrastructure package."

Then there's Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, who will have more power as the tiebreaking presiding officer in a 50-50 deadlocked Senate.

It will also ensure her visibility as Mr. Biden's partner and natural successor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pressure on Trump Intensifies as Resignations Roil End of His Term

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Speaker Nancy Pelosi threatened to pursue impeachment if the Trump cabinet did not invoke the 25th Amendment to strip the president of his powers. Vice President Mike Pence is said to oppose the measure. Two cabinet members, Elaine Chao and Betsy DeVos, resigned on Thursday.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nearly 800,000 Americans filed for unemployment in the last week of 2020 Jan 7, 2021

# data[].attributes.subject
Nearly 800,000 Americans filed for unemployment in the last week of 2020 Jan 7, 2021

# data[].attributes.body
The government has deployed unemployment benefits due to covid-19. My opinion is that this is a good idea for people that have lost their jobs due to covid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The number of Americans filing for jobless aid stayed essentially flat in the last week of 2020, as enhanced unemployment benefits kicked in for laid-off workers.

Roughly 787,000 people applied for unemployment in the week ending January 2, the Labor Department said Thursday. That's just 3,000 less than the previous week's claims, which were revised up to 790,000. Another 161,000 applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, a special federal program for self-employed, freelance and gig workers.

It's the first time since March that new unemployment claims, including for self-employed workers, fell below 1 million a week when accounting for seasonal adjustments. However, part of the drop can be attributed to last week's holidays, during which state unemployment offices were closed and some Americans took time away from daily routines.

Now that a $300 boost in weekly benefits is available to the jobless, claims are expected to rise. And while the economy is expected to recover quickly once vaccinations are broadly distributed, that point remains far in the future.

"While prospects for the economy later in 2021 are upbeat, the economy and labor market will have to navigate some difficult terrain between now and then, and we expect claims to remain elevated," economists at Oxford Economics said in a report

This year has seen a record number of announced job cuts, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Some 2.3 million cuts were announced this year, nearly quadruple the figure for 2019.

"The underlying story here is clear. A combination of COVID fear and state-mandated restrictions on activity in the services sector is squeezing businesses, and no real relief is likely until a sustained decline in pressure on hospitals emerges," Ian Shepherdson of Pantheon Macroeconomics said in a research note.

Job market likely weakened in December

The unemployment figures are released the day before a highly anticipated government report on December hiring. Economists expect it to show that hiring slowed for a sixth straight month, with some analysts estimating that the economy shed jobs in December.

Other signs show that hiring and economic growth are faltering under the weight of the pandemic. On Wednesday, payroll processor ADP reported that private employers shed 123,000 jobs in December, the first such monthly decline since April. ADP's figures generally track the government's jobs data over time, though they can diverge significantly from month to month.

Last month, Coca-Cola Co. said it would cut 2,200 jobs from its global workforce, with about half those layoffs occurring in the United States. 3M, a major manufacturer, has said it will lay off 2,900 workers worldwide.

In November, U.S. consumer spending declined for the first time in seven months, having steadily weakened since summer.
The Associated Press contributed reporting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nearly 800,000 Americans filed for unemployment in the last week of 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of Americans filing for jobless aid stayed essentially flat in the last week of 2020, as enhanced unemployment benefits kicked in for laid-off workers. Roughly 787,000 people applied for unemployment in the week ending January 2, the Labor Department said Thursday.

# data[].attributes.headline
Courts Suspending Jury Trials as COVID-19 Cases Surge (US Courts Nov. 20 2020

# data[].attributes.subject
Courts Suspending Jury Trials as COVID-19 Cases Surge (US Courts Nov. 20 2020

# data[].attributes.body
This says that the Judicial branch can deny a hearing because of the pandemic. My opinion is that this it to protect the people and the government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About two dozen U.S. district courts have posted orders that suspend jury trials or grand jury proceedings, and scale back other courthouse activities in response to a sharp nationwide rise in coronavirus (COVID-19) cases. The surge in new court orders in recent weeks marks a significant pause in efforts by federal courts to resume full operations.

Although courts have safely conducted jury trials during the pandemic, and many of the nation's 94 districts are still scheduling jury trials, several judges said that spikes in new diagnoses and hospitalizations have made the convening of juries an unacceptable risk. Some said they expect conditions to worsen as winter hits.

"In order to resume jury trials, we will need to see the key health markers, as measured by the Colorado Department of Health, go down to acceptable levels," said Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer, of the District of Colorado. "I am concerned that the markers will stay high for several months, despite recent efforts by the governor and metro-area mayors to put in place new restrictions."

The orders issued in recent weeks affect courts in most regions of the country, but they are especially pronounced in cold-weather areas in the North, Midwest, and Plains states. Orders suspending jury trials or grand jury sessions have been posted since mid-October on 25 district court websites, while an additional dozen courts have continued suspensions that were already in effect.

On Nov. 5, the District of Colorado suspended all jury and in-person bench trials, as well as all grand jury sessions, until at least Jan. 8. An order signed by Brimmer cited "positivity rates, the number of hospitalizations, and cumulative incidences per 100,000 people."

In addition to health data, some orders cited growing difficulties in getting jurors to hear cases. "Citizens' increasing inability and reluctance to serve on juries is understandable," said a Nov. 6 order signed by Chief Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr., of the Eastern District of Arkansas, "but it creates the possibility that our juries will not reflect a fair cross section of the Eastern District."

In late April, barely a month after many courts had closed their buildings to public visitors due to rising COVID-19 cases, the Judiciary issued a "gating" strategy to guide courts in a gradual reopening. The document encouraged courts to tie their decisions to a range of local COVID-19 data, which at the time were stabilizing and even improving in many states.

From the start, however, the gating mechanism was designed to move in two directions, also guiding courts on how to scale back or close in-person functions if local health data worsened. As new records in daily cases affect most parts of the country at the same time, court leaders have anticipated and responded to the changing landscape.

"We were going through the positive stages of recovery, beginning jury trials in August and so forth, but there was another conversation going on all the time," said Chief Judge James K. Bredar, of the District of Maryland. "We prepared a rollback template before we needed it and thought through the kinds of issues that we might face and need to deal with."

Bredar ordered his court to suspend all in-person court proceedings from Nov. 16 through the end of the month. While the current order only covers two weeks, the court is evaluating whether to suspend in-person proceedings for a longer period.

"Our epidemiologist has taught me that in the context of COVID-19, it's not just the raw numbers that matter. It's the slopes of the curves," Bredar said. "Unfortunately, our numbers are up, and the slope of the curve is not good, whether it's hospitalizations, test positivity, even deaths."

The districts posting recent orders are: Alaska; Arizona; Eastern District of Arkansas; Colorado; Northern, Central and Southern Districts of Illinois; Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana; Kansas; Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky; Maine; Maryland; Minnesota; Western District of Missouri; Nebraska; Nevada; Northern District of Oklahoma; Western District of Pennsylvania; Western District of Texas; Utah; Eastern District of Virginia; Eastern District of Washington; and Western District of Wisconsin.

In addition, the Northern District of New York has postponed jury trials until Jan. 19 without issuing a court order, after discussions among judges, the Federal Public Defender, and the U.S. attorney's office. And the District of Idaho has lowered its courtroom capacity from 50 to 10.

"We have seen a large uptick in cases after each major event, and with Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's coming, it was thought more prudent to suspend jury trials," said John M. Domurad, clerk of court of the Northern District of New York. "We are actively encouraging doing other proceedings remotely."

A few courts have moved in the opposite direction, recently resuming jury trials based on local conditions. And many districts have maintained jury trials throughout the COVID-19 emergency.

"Our court has held nine jury trials and we have had no issues, and no one has gotten sick," said Chief Judge L. Scott Coogler, of the Northern District of Alabama. "But like courts everywhere, we are seeing the increase in COVID-19 cases, and we are being more cautious."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Courts Suspending Jury Trials as COVID-19 Cases Surge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About two dozen U.S. district courts have posted orders that suspend jury trials or grand jury proceedings, and scale back other courthouse activities in response to a sharp nationwide rise in coronavirus (COVID-19) cases. The surge in new court orders in recent weeks marks a significant pause in efforts by federal courts to resume full operations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Push for Bigger Stimulus Checks Is Running Out of Time      | December 30th, 2020 | | The Wall Street Journal |

# data[].attributes.subject
Push for Bigger Stimulus Checks Is Running Out of Time      | December 30th, 2020 | | The Wall Street Journal |

# data[].attributes.body
This is an example of Checks and Balance because, different branches of power are operating on signing out the Stimulus checks for the people and so each government of power has too much than another to control the stimulus checks; as the senate tries to approve lots of money for the people.

4. I agree that sending out the stimulus check that no branch of government or building has too much power to control it. Just in case it goes out wrong and it's good that it can change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON-The prospect of the Senate quickly approving $2,000 stimulus checks dimmed further, with the chamber focused on overriding President Trump's veto of the annual defense-policy bill before the end of the session and Republican leaders brushing aside Democratic demands for a stand-alone vote on the larger payments.

Mr. Trump's late push to increase the size of direct payments in the recent $900 billion coronavirus-relief legislation to $2,000 from $600 has scrambled the final days of the 116th Congress. Democrats took up Mr. Trump's push for larger checks, rapidly passing a bill through the House with some Republican support and attempting to approve it in the GOP-led Senate.

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) blocked a vote on the checks, the second time he has objected to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D., N.Y.) requests to vote on the House bill. Instead, he introduced legislation that joins the increased checks with other demands from Mr. Trump that lack bipartisan backing: eliminating Section 230 liability protections for social-media companies and reviewing purported voter fraud in the 2020 election. Mr. McConnell hasn't announced a plan to take up that legislation.

Democrats have decried grouping the three provisions together, saying Mr. McConnell is using the contentious measures to cut off Democratic support for the bill and avoid holding a vote directly on the larger checks.

Mr. McConnell said Wednesday the three measures would move together to address Mr. Trump's requests, and he criticized the House bill to increase the size of the checks, saying it had "no realistic path to quickly pass the Senate." He said the $2,000 checks were an inefficient way to provide aid, as some of the money would go to people who haven't suffered financial hardships.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Push for Bigger Stimulus Checks Is Running Out of Time

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON-The prospect of the Senate quickly approving $2,000 stimulus checks dimmed further, with the chamber focused on overriding President Trump's veto of the annual defense-policy bill before the end of the session and Republican leaders brushing aside Democratic demands for a stand-alone vote on the larger payments.

# data[].attributes.headline
Joe Biden Is Certified as the 46th President of the United States

# data[].attributes.subject
Joe Biden Is Certified as the 46th President of the United States

# data[].attributes.body
this represents popular sovereignty because he is the person that majority people voted on.

in my opinion i think this is great because he seems like the perfect fit for our country , and deserves to win.

# data[].attributes.headline
First Covid-119 Vaccine given to a U.S. Public. - Wall Street Journal - 12-14-2020

# data[].attributes.subject
First Covid-119 Vaccine given to a U.S. Public. - Wall Street Journal - 12-14-2020

# data[].attributes.body
3. It's an example because our government is working to distribute vaccines to U.S. citizens
4. I think this was a good decision, and it surprises me how quick they got a Vaccine out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The first U.S. Covid-19 vaccinations outside of clinical trials began Monday, kicking off the most urgent mass immunization campaign since polio shots were rolled out in the 1950s.

A nurse in New York was among the first to receive the shot, and health workers throughout the U.S. were also set to receive the newly authorized vaccine developed by Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE. Pfizer shipped vaccine vials out Sunday, and hospitals and health departments across the country received them early Monday.

A total of 55 sites nationwide had received vaccine shipments by around noon on Monday, said Gen. Gustave Perna, chief operation officer for Operation Warp Speed, the U.S. government's coronavirus-response program. He said at a news conference that plans remain on track for a total of 636 locations to receive vaccines by Wednesday and an additional 581 between Thursday and Sunday, completing distribution of an initial 2.9 million doses. The vaccines are given in two doses several weeks apart.

The government has a reserve of 500,000 doses in case any problems arise, he added.

The largest past immunization campaigns in the U.S. were launched during smaller outbreaks or as preventive measures over many years to try to eradicate a persistent pathogen. The Covid-19 effort "will be logistically and socially and medically the largest unfolding of a vaccination program ever conducted," said Dr. Howard Markel, professor of medical history at the University of Michigan. "We've never had such a massive campaign in the middle of a pandemic."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
First Covid-19 Vaccine Given to U.S. Public

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first U.S. Covid-19 vaccinations outside of clinical trials began Monday, kicking off the most urgent mass immunization campaign since polio shots were rolled out in the 1950s. A nurse in New York was among the first to receive the shot, and health workers throughout the U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump impeached by U.S. House on two charges Newsela 12/18/2019

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump impeached by U.S. House on two charges Newsela 12/18/2019

# data[].attributes.body
3.This is an example of checks and balances because Trump used his powers as the President for his own gain and got impeached in the process.
4. I think it is good because everyone needs to learn a lesson to become better in life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Trump impeached by U.S. House on two charges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Donald Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.headline
Senate Votes to Override Trump’s Veto of Defense Bill.

# data[].attributes.subject
Senate Votes to Override Trump’s Veto of Defense Bill.

# data[].attributes.body
Source is NYTIMES on January 1,2021. This is an example of checks and balances because they joined democrats to overturn Trump's veto of the annual bill. In my opinion this was a good idea because they rejected a bill for so much money and this was a huge risk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
new video loaded: Senate Votes to Override Trump's Veto of Defense Bill

transcript

Senate Votes to Override Trump's Veto of Defense Bill

Republicans joined Democrats on Friday to override President Trump's veto of the annual defense bill, delivering him the first such legislative rebuke of his presidency.

Is there any further debate? If not, the question is. Shall the bill pass the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding? Yeas and nays are required and the clerk will call the roll. Are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their votes? Seeing none on this vote? The yeas are 81, the nays are 13. 2/3 of the senators voting quorum being present. Having voted in the affirmative, the bill on reconsideration has passed the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video: Senate Votes to Override Trump's Veto of Defense Bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
new video loaded: Senate Votes to Override Trump's Veto of Defense Bill transcript Republicans joined Democrats on Friday to override President Trump's veto of the annual defense bill, delivering him the first such legislative rebuke of his presidency. Is there any further debate? If not, the question is.

# data[].attributes.headline
Biden Tax-Increase Agenda Revived as Democrats Win Senate- Wall Street Journal, Jan.7 2021

# data[].attributes.subject
Biden Tax-Increase Agenda Revived as Democrats Win Senate- Wall Street Journal, Jan.7 2021

# data[].attributes.body
Biden is using his power to bring back tax policies to the surface and to raise them.
4. What is your opinion of this?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON-Democratic control of the Senate gives President-elect Joe Biden a much stronger chance of raising taxes on corporations and high-income households.

Until this week's Georgia runoff elections, Mr. Biden's plans for tax increases were running into solid opposition from the Republican-controlled Senate. But now, Democrats will hold the White House, Senate and House simultaneously for the first time in more than a decade, and they are poised to use that power.

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Biden proposed raising taxes on corporations, estates and high-income households, reversing key parts of the 2017 tax cuts passed by Republicans and reprising policies that the Obama administration couldn't get through Congress. Democrats had spent the time between November's election and this week's runoffs looking at bipartisan compromises and examining what the administration could do unilaterally.

Now, some of Mr. Biden's ideas are much more likely to become law, said Steve Wamhoff of the progressive Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, who said that the president-elect's plans are less far-reaching than some Democratic alternatives and are broadly popular with the public.

"The issue was always, could Democrats get something on the floor? And the answer to that is now clearly 'yes,'" Mr. Wamhoff said. "Biden did win after campaigning on raising taxes on corporations and raising taxes on the rich."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biden Tax-Increase Agenda Revived as Democrats Win Senate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON-Democratic control of the Senate gives President-elect Joe Biden a much stronger chance of raising taxes on corporations and high-income households. Until this week's Georgia runoff elections, Mr. Biden's plans for tax increases were running into solid opposition from the Republican-controlled Senate.

# data[].attributes.headline
State Policy Trends 2019: A Wave of Abortion Bans, But Some States Are Fighting Back

# data[].attributes.subject
State Policy Trends 2019: A Wave of Abortion Bans, But Some States Are Fighting Back

# data[].attributes.body
They show how they can make there on laws and how people are able to vote for these laws.

I believe this law is very well rounded and has made many people happy and angry but it shows how they can have laws only for a state itself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2019, conservative state legislators raced to enact an unprecedented wave of bans on all, most or some abortions, and by the end of the year, 25 new abortion bans had been signed into law, primarily in the South and Midwest. Along with this new strategy, legislators also continued their efforts to adopt other types of abortion restrictions, including requirements for abortion providers to give patients misleading and inaccurate information about the potential to reverse a medication abortion as part of abortion counseling.

These state-level policy developments to ban or restrict abortion are also an important backdrop as the U.S. Supreme Court considers a Louisiana law in 2020 that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The Louisiana law is identical to a Texas law the Court struck down in 2016, and reversing its own precedent only four years later would raise serious questions about the Court's integrity and ability to respect settled law. A decision upholding the Louisiana law could also have a significant impact on those seeking abortion care in many parts of the country.

In direct response to efforts to undermine abortion access in other states and in the courts, state legislatures primarily in the Northeast and West, along with Illinois, are moving in the opposite direction. These legislatures have enacted policies that protect abortion rights and expand access to contraceptive services and sex education. This year, 36 measures that protect abortion have been enacted, along with 46 policies intended to decrease maternal mortality, 13 that increase access to contraceptive coverage and 17 that improve sex education. Also, governors in five states vetoed abortion restrictions. The new abortion protections are particularly notable: More were enacted this year than in the entire previous decade.

Nearly half of the 58 new abortion restrictions enacted in 2019 would ban all, most or some abortions. This surge in abortion bans is a distinct departure from the strategy deployed by abortion opponents for decades, which was to adopt less sweeping abortion restrictions with a cumulative impact of denying care to patients and forcing clinics to close. The latter approach had led to passage of laws that were less likely to be challenged in court than outright bans. By contrast, supporters of the new wave of abortion bans have made it clear that they are seeking to give the U.S. Supreme Court multiple opportunities to undermine or overturn long-standing constitutional protections for individuals seeking an abortion.

Abortion Bans

The 25 abortion bans enacted in 12 states in 2019 vary in scope, with some prohibiting abortion after a specific point in pregnancy, others prohibiting a specific method of abortion, and other bans hinging on the patient's reason for seeking an abortion.

Nine states enacted gestational age bans:

Alabama enacted a total ban on abortion, at any point in pregnancy.

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and Ohio banned abortion when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which could be interpreted to be as early as six weeks of pregnancy.

Missouri banned abortion at eight weeks and included additional bans at three other gestational ages in anticipation of litigation over each ban's constitutionality.

Arkansas and Utah banned abortion at 18 weeks of pregnancy.

In all of these states except Louisiana, lawsuits were filed to challenge the legislation and the bans are not currently in effect. In Louisiana, the law will not go into effect unless the Mississippi ban is upheld.

Two states enacted bans on a specific method of abortion:

Indiana and North Dakota banned the method that is the standard of care for surgical abortion after about 14 weeks of pregnancy.

Enforcement of the Indiana ban has been blocked pending the outcome of litigation, while the North Dakota ban will not go into effect unless Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Mississippi and West Virginia currently have a ban in place on this method of abortion.

Four states enacted bans based on the patient's reason for seeking an abortion:

Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri and Utah banned abortion of a fetus that has or may have Down syndrome.

Kentucky and Missouri also banned abortion based on the race or predicted sex of the fetus, and Kentucky banned abortion for a diagnosis of a genetic anomaly.

The bans in Arkansas and Kentucky have been blocked from going into effect during ongoing legal proceedings. The Utah ban will only go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned. The Missouri bans are in effect.

Including the new Missouri bans, nine states currently ban abortion for purposes of sex selection. Two of those states also have a ban based on race selection, and two states have a ban in effect based on genetic anomaly.

Four states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee) adopted legislation that would ban abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade.
With these additions, eight states have "trigger bans" in place.

Abortion Counseling
Since 2015, several states have required that abortion counseling include information on the potential to stop the completion of a medication abortion after taking the first drug of the two-drug regimen- a claim that is not supported by credible scientific evidence.

In 2019, four states (Kentucky, Nebraska, North Dakota and Oklahoma) enacted this counseling requirement, and Arkansas amended an existing law that mandated this type of counseling. These laws require medical providers to inform patients about the potential to reverse a medication abortion as part of preabortion counseling and require that the state-provided counseling materials include this information.

The Arkansas law amendment requires that medical providers give patients written information after taking the first drug, in addition to information conveyed in the preabortion counseling and the state materials.

The newly enacted laws in North Dakota and Oklahoma have been challenged in court and their enforcement has been blocked pending the outcome of the litigation.

With the addition of the new laws in Arkansas, Kentucky and Nebraska, six states now require information on "reversing" a medication abortion.

Abortion Protections

As legislators in other states attack abortion rights, progressive state legislators are responding to a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court by enacting protections and expanding availability. In 2019, nine states took major steps to protect or expand abortion access and governors in five states vetoed abortion restrictions passed by the state legislature.

Four states enacted laws to affirm the right to abortion:

Laws in Illinois, New York and Rhode Island protect abortion up to the point of fetal viability and when a patient's life or health is at risk at any stage. Vermont's law provides protections for abortion throughout pregnancy.

All four laws also protect the right to contraception (including sterilization) and the right to carry a pregnancy to term.

The Illinois, New York and Vermont laws prohibit interference in accessing services related to these rights and remove legal barriers to the provision of abortion by advanced physician assistants, certified nurse midwives and advanced practice nurses.

With the addition of these four states, 13 states have statutory protections for abortion rights.

New laws in Maine allow physician assistants and advanced practice nurses to provide abortion care and require Medicaid and private health insurance plans to cover abortion.

California now requires student health centers on University of California and California State University campuses to provide medication abortion.

Nevada repealed its unenforced criminal abortion statute, removing a legal mechanism for punishing abortion providers if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

A New Jersey law protects the confidentiality of home addresses for employees and patients of reproductive health providers.

New laws in Hawaii and New York prohibit employers from discriminating against employees or their dependents for their reproductive health decisions and use of reproductive health care services, including assisted reproductive technologies.

Governors in Kansas, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin vetoed a range of abortion restrictions.

Montana's governor vetoed a measure that would have prohibited abortion at 20 weeks postfertilization, which is 22 weeks after a woman's last menstrual period.

Measures that would have required a health care provider to preserve the life of a fetus delivered alive during an abortion procedure were vetoed in Montana, North Carolina and Wisconsin. (Existing prohibitions in Montana and Wisconsin remain in place.)

The governors of Kansas and Wisconsin vetoed legislation that would have required abortion patients to receive counseling on the potential to reverse a medication abortion.

The governors of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin vetoed measures that would have banned some abortions based on the patient's reason for seeking the procedure. In Wisconsin, the governor vetoed legislation that would have banned abortion based on the race or sex of the fetus or because of a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of a genetic anomaly, including Down syndrome. In Pennsylvania, the governor vetoed a measure that would have banned abortion based on a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of Down syndrome.
Montana's governor vetoed legislation that would have required that patients are offered an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion.

Other Proactive Legislation

Beyond abortion, states have also enacted legislation that seeks to reduce maternal deaths and that protects and expands access to contraception and sex education.

Addressing Maternal Mortality

In recent years, state legislatures across the country have worked to address persistent racial disparities in maternal mortality: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the maternal mortality ratio for black women is three times as high as the ratio for white women, meaning three times as many pregnancy-related deaths occur per 100,000 births.

In 2019, 22 states and the District of Columbia enacted new provisions to address this crisis. The efforts take two overall approaches to improving maternal health: 1) establishing or reviving lapsed statewide maternal mortality review commissions, and 2) expanding access to and improving the quality of maternal health services.

Twelve states (Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Virginia) established maternal mortality review commissions.

These panels are generally tasked with reviewing maternal deaths and providing recommendations to reduce maternal mortality in the future.

The New York law establishes commissions for New York State and New York City.

Another eight states (California, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas, Washington and West Virginia) and DC enacted laws that support the work of existing commissions.

The Maryland commission will now provide information and recommendations about maternal mortality to state agencies and local groups as a way to promote an integrated public health response; a related program will study and make recommendations to reduce disparities in maternal mortality rates, including social determinants related to maternal mortality.

The new law in Texas requires collection of information on maternal care and postpartum depression, and evaluation of the use of telemedicine for pregnancy and postpartum care.

New laws in 10 states (California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia) aim to expand access to and improve the quality of health care to support positive maternal health outcomes.
In four of these states, Medicaid will be expanded to provide additional services: Illinois will expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant women from 60 days postpartum to 12 months postpartum; New Jersey's Medicaid will include doula services; Texas will require Medicaid to improve prenatal and postpartum care and require statewide initiatives to improve the quality of maternal health services and outcomes; and West Virginia's Children's Health Insurance Program will include pregnant women with incomes up to 300% of the federal poverty guidelines and the state Medicaid program will include pregnant women up to 185% of the guidelines.

Four states (Colorado, Indiana, Minnesota and Virginia) expanded access to health care for pregnant patients who use substances through improved referral and funding for services.

Sex Education

State legislatures continue to focus on sex education, with legislation enacted in nine states (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia) and DC. State legislation passed this year primarily focused on expanding the scope of sex education to provide information on sexual consent, include LGBTQ students, and promote healthy and violence-free relationships. Including these new laws, 24 states and DC require some form of sex education.

New laws in Illinois, New Jersey and DC require education on sexual consent:

In Illinois, the instruction must include information on consent, withdrawal of consent and actions that do not constitute consent.

The New Jersey law includes instruction on the right to refuse unwanted sexual activity and the importance of respecting others' refusals.

In DC, instruction must cover personal boundaries and healthy relationships.

Four states passed laws related to education around sexual violence:

Connecticut's law requires education on prevention of sexual assault and dating violence.

The New York law requires education on prevention of child sexual exploitation and abuse.

Tennessee's law encourages schools to provide age-appropriate sexual violence awareness education in grades 7-12.

The Virginia law requires evidence-based and age-appropriate instruction on human trafficking.

Arizona repealed a provision of the state's sex education law that prohibited HIV/AIDS instruction provided to students in grades K-12 from offering positive information about homosexuality.

Utah amended its sex education law so that schools may, but are not required to, include information on contraception.

Colorado expanded requirements for sex education when it is provided in schools. The new law requires sex education to be provided without bias, expands the requirements for contraception education and adds requirements for providing information on adoption, abortion, parenting and infant abandonment. The curriculum must also cover recognition and withdrawal of sexual consent. In addition, the sex education material is not allowed to endorse a religion, use shame-based or stigmatizing language, use gender stereotypes or exclude LGBTQ individuals.

Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives

In 2019, four states with existing guarantees for contraceptive coverage strengthened and expanded those requirements. There are currently 29 states that have a contraceptive coverage guarantee.

Amendments to New Mexico and New York laws require health insurance plans to cover, without cost sharing, all U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, emergency contraception and sterilization.

In both states, the amendments require private plans to cover over-the-counter contraceptive methods and require coverage for an extended supply of a method dispensed at one time-a six-month supply in New Mexico and a 12-month supply in New York.

In New Mexico, coverage for male sterilization and male condoms was excluded from high-deductible private insurance plans (in order to comply with an interpretation of federal law around those types of plans).

The laws also require both states' Medicaid programs to cover up to a 12-month supply of contraceptives dispensed at one time.

Other Measures

A new Washington state law bars private health insurance plans, student health plans and Medicaid from automatically denying reproductive health care services based on a patient's gender. The new law also requires coverage of condoms, services related to sexual assault, well-person preventive visits, prenatal vitamins and breast pumps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State Policy Trends 2019: A Wave of Abortion Bans, But Some States Are Fighting Back

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2019, conservative state legislators raced to enact an unprecedented wave of bans on all, most or some abortions, and by the end of the year, 25 new abortion bans had been signed into law, primarily in the South and Midwest.

# data[].attributes.headline
U.K. Judge Rejects Julian Assange's Bail Request, Citing Flight Risk-1/6/21

# data[].attributes.subject
U.K. Judge Rejects Julian Assange's Bail Request, Citing Flight Risk-1/6/21

# data[].attributes.body
3.This is an example because a judge is making a decision.
4. My opinion was that he should have bailed him and gave him another chance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Julian Assange will remain in a British prison after a U.K. court denied his request to go free on bail Wednesday, citing the U.S. government's ongoing attempts to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to face espionage charges.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser - who gave Assange a court victory earlier this week by rejecting the U.S. extradition request - ruled that Assange must be held in custody while the U.S. government appeals, saying he poses a flight risk.

Assange will remain in Belmarsh prison in south-east London, where he has been held since the spring of 2019. He was arrested after spending seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

"It is extremely disappointing that even though the request for Mr. Assange's extradition to the United States has been denied, he will continue to be held in a maximum security prison in London, under lockdown during a pandemic," Assange's attorney Barry Pollack said after the ruling. He added, "We look forward to the day that he can be reunited with his family."

Baraitser denied Assange's application for bail days after she ruled that because of Assange's mental health and the risk of suicide, "it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America."

In court Wednesday, Baraitser said that Assange's mental health condition is being sufficiently managed by prison officials and staff, contrary to the views of Assange's legal team and supporters.

Assange has now been fighting extradition for the better part of a decade, initially avoiding being sent to Sweden to face a criminal inquiry there, and then eluding U.S. attempts to haul him into federal court to face a raft of charges related to the publication of sensitive diplomatic cables and secret military records from the Iran and Afghanistan conflicts.

In court Wednesday, lawyers representing the U.S. said that if Assange goes free on bail, at least one other country has already offered him political asylum. Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador made the offer earlier this week, saying, "Assange is a journalist and deserves a chance, I am in favor of pardoning him."

Assange's legal team insists he does not represent a flight risk, noting the protections of the British legal system as well as the looming change in U.S. leadership, as The Associated Press reports. It's not yet known, his attorneys said, whether a Biden administration would pursue Assange's extradition. His attorneys also say Assange has personal reasons to stay put, citing his relationship with his partner, Stella Morris, and their two children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.K. Judge Rejects Julian Assange's Bail Request, Citing Flight Risk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Julian Assange will remain in a British prison after a U.K. court denied his request to go free on bail Wednesday, citing the U.S. government's ongoing attempts to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to face espionage charges. District Judge Vanessa Baraitser - who gave Assange a court victory earlier this week by rejecting the U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Voters Are Turning Against Trump in Places Hit Hard by COVID-19

# data[].attributes.subject
Voters Are Turning Against Trump in Places Hit Hard by COVID-19

# data[].attributes.body
This shows how they were able to change there opinion and can have many different opinions or beliefs and they want to give power to other Representatives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The voice of the people may be the voice of God - but if so, the Almighty works in mysterious ways.

In recent years, the rise of anti-intellectual, plutocratic "populism" throughout the Western world has tested progressives' faith in actually existing democracy. When a pack of wellborn drunkards complicit in ruinous austerity wins the hearts and minds of working-class Britons - by mendaciously championing a policy that will make them poorer - it can be hard to summon warm feelings for popular sovereignty. And when the GOP can prioritize tax cuts for the rich at a time of record-high corporate profits, opioid overdoses, and income inequality - and maintain its support among nonaffluent voters - a liberal might be forgiven for wondering if rational self-government isn't another " God that failed."

The first weeks of the coronavirus crisis called into question even the humblest arguments for democracy's capacity to deliver responsive governance. In Democracy for Realists, the political scientists Larry Bartels and Christopher Achen argue that voters largely cast their ballots on the basis of their acquired social identities, not informed policy preferences (of which most have few). The authors maintain, however, that democracy functions as a constraint on misrule, as voters tend to punish incumbents for major losses suffered on their watch.

Yet when a virus that Donald Trump had brazenly dismissed started filling America's ICUs and shuttering its downtowns in late March, the president's approval rating went up. Since then, more than 150,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, and the U.S. economy has entered its worst crisis since the Great Depression - all while the president has advised the public to inject disinfectant, gassed protesters to enable a photo op with a Bible, convened potential super-spreader events in coronavirus hot spots, and argued that the number of U.S. coronavirus deaths is an irrelevant statistic.

.@jonathanvswan: "Oh, you're doing death as a proportion of cases. I'm talking about death as a proportion of population. That's where the U.S. is really bad. Much worse than South Korea, Germany, etc."@realdonaldtrump: "You can't do that."

Swan: "Why can't I do that?" pic.twitter.com/MStySfkV39
- Axios (@axios) August 4, 2020

All this has put a dent in Trump's approval rating and poll numbers against Joe Biden, but the dent is not as deep as one might hope. As of this writing, the president's approval rating in 538's polling average is 41.2 percent; on January 2, it was 42.4. Meanwhile, Biden leads Trump by 7.4 percent in the RealClearPolitics poll of polls; in mid-March, Biden led Trump by 6.4 percent.

Still, recent weeks have yielded signs of civic vitality in the U.S. Social movements defending the interests of the disempowered against state violence have won popular majorities to their cause. Although Trump's political decline is more modest than one might hope, given the widespread tendency of the mass public to rally behind incumbent leaders when faced with an acute crisis - and the exceptional power of right-wing media in the U.S. - the fact that the president's mishandling of the pandemic has turned his reelection into a long shot is cause for encouragement. And now, a new study from political scientists Lynn Vavreck, Christopher Warshaw, and Ryan Baxter-King offers further reassurance that responsive government is still possible in the United States.

The researchers set out to determine whether the rise in COVID-19 deaths is directly costing Trump and the Republican Party voter support. To explore this question, they looked at whether areas with a high level of accumulated COVID-19 deaths by the end of May were less likely to support the president and his party, after controlling for all other relevant variables (such as the partisan and demographic composition of areas impacted by the virus and changes in national public opinion during the period in which deaths rose in those areas). Here's what they found:

The gap between stated voting support for Mr. Trump and Joseph R. Biden Jr. grows by about 2.5 percentage points in Mr. Biden's favor when a county has extremely high levels of coronavirus-related deaths relative to when it has low levels ... A doubling of cases per capita in a county over the last 60 days drops Mr. Trump's two-party vote margin against Mr. Biden by a third of a percentage point - a seemingly small gap, but not when you consider that several recent elections have been won by narrow margins. In 2016, the critical state of Michigan was won by less than a third of a point; Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were won by less than a point. And some places are seeing a tripling or quadrupling of cases.

An unsentimental appraisal of contemporary democracy's dysfunction doesn't dictate elitist conclusions. Ordinary people do not reliably hold their leaders accountable to their interests and avowed preferences in our present social context, which is to say: in a society where civic and communitarian institutions are in decay, economic power is concentrated in the hands of the few, and most people rely on television news for their political information. One could read this fact as an indictment of ordinary people's capacity for self-government. But it could also be interpreted as an indictment of an economic system and social order that frustrates that capacity. The grotesque class and regional inequalities that define American social life were not born of tyrannical majorities but of reactionary and/or technocratic elites who enacted regressive tax, trade, and monetary policies, often in defiance of popular preferences. (And, of course, the most democratic features of America's constitutional order were not what put Donald Trump in the White House; its most counter-majoritarian did.)

The study from Vavreck, Warshaw, and Baxter-King suggests that when voters are exposed to the worst consequences of Trump's misgovernance - not through cable news or social media but through the lived experiences of friends and neighbors - they become more likely to hold their leaders to account. To improve and fortify our democracy, we must strive to provide Americans with the tools, information, and social institutions necessary to make the less spectacular failures of governance politically salient.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Voters Are Turning Against Trump in Places Hit Hard by COVID-19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The voice of the people may be the voice of God - but if so, the Almighty works in mysterious ways. In recent years, the rise of anti-intellectual, plutocratic "populism" throughout the Western world has tested progressives' faith in actually existing democracy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Second stimulus check problems: Payments delayed, going to wrong bank account, missing payment for kids. - KHOU 11 - 1/5/2021

# data[].attributes.subject
Second stimulus check problems: Payments delayed, going to wrong bank account, missing payment for kids. - KHOU 11 - 1/5/2021

# data[].attributes.body
3. This is an example because Congress are creating a stimulus check to give back to the American people. Many people of Congress have to sign in and vote on these checks.
4. I think it's extremely disappointing many Americans have not received a payment yet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The IRS launched an online tool that allows people to track the status of their COVID stimulus payment - but for some it is leading to more questions than answers.

HOUSTON - The IRS on Monday launched its 'Get My Payment' portal for citizens to track the status of their second coronavirus stimulus payment.

Many Americans had already received their payment before the tracker went online - but many had not and still have not.

If you're still waiting, you can visit the stimulus payment tracker page here to check the status of your payment. You will need to enter your Social Security Number, date of birth and street address to find out the status.

Are you having problems getting your second payment or checking its status? You're not alone - some say their payment went to the wrong bank account. Others say they didn't get enough money.

Here are some of the issues we are tracking:

Payment status not available

In short, the IRS says - like the first time around - this message indicates there was some kind of issue using or getting the data from your 2019 return, which is what stimulus payments are based on.

Here's the official Dec. 2020 statement from the IRS about this message:
The Get My Payment application will return "Payment Status Not Available" for several reasons, including:

You're required to file a tax return, but
we haven't finished processing your 2019 return

You don't usually file a return, and
you used Non-Filers: Enter Payment Info Here but we haven't processed your entry yet

You're not eligible for a payment (see EIP Eligibility and General Information).

If you're getting the #2 unavailable message, the IRS says your payment is not coming in the form of a check or a direct deposit:

The IRS said that anyone who sees this message will not receive a second Economic Impact Payment by mail or direct deposit and instead needs to "claim the Recovery Rebate Credit on your 2020 Tax Return." Read more here.

Payment went to the wrong account

According to the IRS website, your payment information cannot be changed. If you don't get a payment and you are eligible to receive one, it may be claimed on your 2020 tax return as the Recovery Rebate Credit.

Be aware that some people have reported their second stimulus payment, like their first, went to their tax preparer instead of their personal checking account. If you used a third-party company to help you file your 2019 taxes and get a refund - you may want to reach out to them. Be aware, however customer support phonelines currently have a long wait.

H&R Block is among those companies confirming some of its customers were impacted by this issue (H&R Block customers can read more at the bottom of this page).

Payment was lower than it should have been OR why did I not get extra money for having a dependent / child?

Remember, the IRS is basing your income off your 2019 tax filings. New parents will not receive a check for their newest member of the family because the stimulus checks are based on 2019 tax filings. However, these parents will be able to receive this money eventually, when they file their 2020 tax return.

The second round of stimulus checks will be for $600 this time around for a qualifying individual. That is half of what they received in the first round of stimulus checks. A couple filing jointly would be eligible for $1,200, assuming their income qualifies.
CALCULATOR: Here is a tool from Omni Calculator that may help you determine how much you might receive
A couple or individual can also collect an additional $600 for each dependent under the age of 17.

Just as with the first round of stimulus checks, there are income requirements. An individual must have made less than $75,000 on their 2019 tax filings, in order to receive the full $600 check. For additional income, the check starts to phase out, hitting zero at $87,000.

Meanwhile couples will receive the full $1,200 check if they made less than $150,000 on their 2019 tax filings. This check will phase out above that income level, hitting zero at $174,000.

H&R Block customers experiencing payment delays or missing payments

People that have their tax refund checks sent directly to their bank account automatically get their stimulus check from the government to that account number. However, H&R Block customers that used the Refund Transfer option in 2019 may have had their stimulus sent to that temporary account. The company says they are investigating why this happened.

H&R Block posted online saying in part, " If you took a Refund Transfer, it may be reflecting that account number. Check your 2019 return to confirm." " But don't worry - we have sent these payments on to the method you chose for Refund Transfer: direct deposit, check, or Emerald Card. The money should be there by the end of the day."

However, many are saying they still didn't receive their payment at the end of the day when this started on Monday, or they only received a part of their payment.
Multiple writers from KHOU 11 and across TEGNA contributed to this report
If you don't receive money this time when you should, you'll be eligible to get that money on your tax return.

Are you experiencing another issue or would like to air your grievances? Get involved in the discussion on the KHOU 11 Facebook page here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Second stimulus check problems: Payments delayed, going to wrong bank account, 'status unavilable'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The IRS launched an online tool that allows people to track the status of their COVID stimulus payment - but for some it is leading to more questions than answers. HOUSTON - The IRS on Monday launched its 'Get My Payment' portal for citizens to track the status of their second coronavirus stimulus payment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump Orders Ban On Chinese Software Apps, Citing Potential Espionage Jan/6/21

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump Orders Ban On Chinese Software Apps, Citing Potential Espionage Jan/6/21

# data[].attributes.body
3. This is an example of republicanism because our president made a decision for us.
4.My opinion is that he made the right decision because having espionage would be bad for the state and its people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Trump has signed an executive order banning business with several leading Chinese technology companies, claiming apps run by the companies have the ability to spy on Americans, including federal employees.

Trump's order seeks to prohibit transactions with eight companies including Alipay, owned by Chinese billionaire Jack Ma; the payment platform on the popular app WeChat; and a Chinese messaging service called QQ owned by the Chinese tech giant Tencent.

Other software apps included in the order are CamScanner, QQ Wallet, SHAREit, VMate and WPS Office.

It's the latest push by the administration to clamp down on ascendant Chinese technology companies over fears that authorities in China could use the apps to spy on Americans.

In the order on Tuesday, the president suggested such software poses "an unacceptable risk to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States."

"[By] accessing personal electronic devices such as smartphones, tablets, and computers, Chinese connected software applications can access and capture vast swaths of information from users, including sensitive personally identifiable information and private information," the order says.

National security adviser Robert O'Brien praised the move on Tuesday, saying that all Chinese companies are required by the government to support the Communist Party's political objectives.

"China's Military-Civil Fusion strategy explicitly aims to co-opt or coerce civilian enterprises into assisting the People's Liberation Army," O'Brien wrote.

He added that the order paves the way for developing "a program to control the export of exploitable United States user data to foreign adversaries."

But with the mandate not going into effect for another 45 days - long after Trump's out of office - its actual implementation would require the buy-in of the incoming Biden administration. And that is not certain.

A senior official with the Trump administration said in a briefing with reporters Tuesday night that the Biden administration had not been consulted in devising the far-reaching executive order.

Should President-elect Joe Biden choose to move ahead with the bans, it is not likely to have a tremendous impact on U.S. consumers, who represent a fraction of the companies' customer base. Most users of the apps are Chinese citizens.

Even so, the apps are increasingly crucial to U.S. businesses operating in China, with most having virtual storefronts tied into Alibaba/Alipay and WeChat.

The order does not take aim at video app TikTok, which is also owned by a Chinese company. Trump's attempt to put that app out of business over national security concerns has been blocked by multiple federal courts.

Still, it is another attempt by the administration to crack down on foreign companies. Last month, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a list of Chinese and Russian companies with alleged military ties that bar them from buying a wide range of American goods and technology.

China has consistently denied claims that these companies share their data with the Chinese government and in response has retaliated by issuing its restrictions on exports of military technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Orders Ban On Chinese Software Apps, Citing Potential Espionage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump has signed an executive order banning business with several leading Chinese technology companies, claiming apps run by the companies have the ability to spy on Americans, including federal employees.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court Shuts Door On Texas Suit Seeking To Overturn Election                | December 11th, 2020 |  | NPR | 

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court Shuts Door On Texas Suit Seeking To Overturn Election                | December 11th, 2020 |  | NPR | 

# data[].attributes.body
This is an example of Judicial Branch because the Supreme Court turned down Texas as Trump tries to win them to overturn the election. Trump is unhappy.

The Supreme court has the power to debate either any law or any obstacle to get through or not. I agree with the option and answer they chose.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night rejected an eleventh hour challenge to Joe Biden's election as president.

The court's action came in a one-page order, which said the complaint was denied "for lack of standing."

Texas, supported by President Trump, tried to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan, claiming fraud, without evidence. But in order for a state to bring a case in court, especially the Supreme Court, a state must show it has been injured. In essence, the court said Texas could not show that it was injured by the way other states conducted their elections.

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections," the court wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that in their view the court does "not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction."

But the two said that while they would have allowed the filing of the complaint, they would not have granted Trump or Texas any of the relief they sought.

Kevin McCarthy, the top ranking Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, had earlier in the day attached his name to 125 fellow House Republicans who supported Trump's longshot bid. McCarthy was the most notable member of Congress to back the suit.

On Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued four states where Biden had been certified the winner: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The suit, filed directly in the Supreme Court, was styled as "an original" case, pitting one state against another.

Paxton claimed that the targeted states made changes to election procedures due to the pandemic that violated federal law. He alleged the changes enabled voter fraud. And he asked the Supreme Court to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for the Electoral College electors to cast ballots in those four states, contending more time was needed to allow investigations of the election results.

Paxton's suit came in the face of repeated findings by state officials, including Republican state officeholders, certifying the results, as well as statements by U.S. Attorney General William Barr that the Justice Department did not find evidence of widespread fraud in this year's election.

The Texas suit set in motion a cascade of legal motions at the high court. Not only did President Trump seek to join the Texas suit, so did 17 other states - all overwhelmingly won by Trump. More support would follow, including the brief filed by a majority of the GOP members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Late Thursday the four targeted states struck back in briefs filed in the Supreme Court.

"Texas invites this court to overthrow the votes of the American people and choose the next president of the United States," wrote Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr, chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association. "That Faustian invitation must be firmly rejected," he said.

"Georgia did what the Constitution empowered it to do," the state's brief said. It "implemented processes for the election, administered the election in the face of logistical challenges brought on by Covid-19, and confirmed and certified the election results - again and again and again. Yet Texas has sued Georgia anyway."

Pennsylvania was equally acerbic. "The court should not abide this seditious abuse of judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that that abuse must never be replicated," it said in its brief. And Wisconsin said the Texas bid "to nullify [Wisconsin's] choice [for president] is devoid of a legal foundation or factual basis."

It was unclear how or why Paxton, the Texas attorney general, decided to carry Trump's water in the case. Especially since all four targeted states have Republican-controlled legislatures, and to date, both state and federal courts at lower levels, including Trump-appointed judges, have found the fraud allegations baseless.

The unprecedented nature of the Paxton suit, plus the fact that the state's chief appellate lawyer, Kyle Hawkins, did not sign the Texas brief as he usually would do, has spurred speculation that Paxton is seeking a pardon. He is currently under indictment over securities fraud, and is being investigated by the FBI on bribery and abuse of power allegations.

Although the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over disputes between states, such cases are rare, and are almost exclusively confined to disputes that can't be handled by other courts, such as those over borders or water rights.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court rejected an effort to block Pennsylvania from certifying its election results in favor of Biden. Trump distanced himself from the legal blow and hitched his wagon instead to the Texas lawsuit, calling it "the case that everyone has been waiting for."

Trump reportedly had conversations with some of the Republican attorneys general who were meeting this week in Washington, urging them to support the Texas lawsuit. And several news organizations reported that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, had agreed to represent Trump in the event the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case.

Initial reaction to the Texas suit, however, has been dismissive at best. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told CNN that he "frankly struggle[d] to understand the legal theory" of the suit, noting that election disputes in our system are "decided at the state and local level and not at the national level."

The Texas suit had other problems. First was the question of legal standing. Essentially, how do Texas, or the states joining it, have legal standing to complain about the procedures for voting and counting votes in other states?

Next, the Texas lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to delay the vote in four targeted states, but as professor Edward Foley of the Moritz College of Law observed, the date for electors to cast their votes is set by federal law under the Constitution, which requires that the day "shall be the same throughout the United States."

The date chosen by Congress this year is Dec. 14.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, called Paxton's lawsuit "dangerous garbage."

"This is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit," he wrote.

"It's too late for the Supreme Court to grant a remedy even if the claims were meritorious (they are not)," he wrote.

On Friday evening after the decision, Hasen wrote that the fact that "courts across the nation, with both Democratic and Republican judges, held the line for the rule of law" is "something really to celebrate."

Benjamin Ginsburg, a longtime election law guru for the Republican Party, told CNN on Wednesday that he didn't think "for an instant" that the Supreme Court would consider taking up the case.

That said, with three Trump appointees on the court, and a newly strengthened 6-3 majority of conservative Republican-appointed justices, the president apparently believed that the Supreme Court would view the case differently than did "election experts." He was wrong.

Trump later weighed in on the decision on Twitter. "The Supreme Court really let us down," he wrote. "No Wisdom, No Courage!"

Barring unforeseen events, the result of the court's action is that on Monday, the Electoral College delegates in each state will cast their ballots, and Biden will formally become the president-elect, with only one more step, in the House of Representatives where the Electoral College votes are certified, before he is sworn in on Jan. 20.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Shuts Door On Texas Suit Seeking To Overturn Election

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night rejected an eleventh hour challenge to Joe Biden's election as president. The court's action came in a one-page order, which said the complaint was denied "for lack of standing." Texas, supported by President Trump, tried to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan, claiming fraud, without evidence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Senate Overrides Trump's NDAA Veto 1/1/21

# data[].attributes.subject
Senate Overrides Trump's NDAA Veto 1/1/21

# data[].attributes.body
3.This is an example of checks and balances because one power is using its power to keep another power in check.
4. My opinion is that the senate made the right decision because trump is getting out of hand.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to The NPR Politics Podcast podcast

The Senate on Friday overrode President Trump's veto for the first time. Lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to finalize the National Defense Authorization Act despite the president's objection to it.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

The Senate started 2021 by overriding for the first time a veto from President Trump. Lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to finalize the massive defensive spending bill despite the president's objection to it. In the waning weeks of Trump's presidency, Republicans have been forced to decide whether to back the outgoing leader of their party or stick to the policies they've traditionally supported. And they've been forced to confront everything from the coronavirus relief and Internet regulations to defense spending and the outcome of the 2020 election, all as balance of power is still to be decided in a pair of runoff elections in Georgia. NPR congressional correspondent Kelsey Snell joins us now. And, Kelsey, I want to start with that defense bill, usually a bipartisan affair - right? - something Congress does every year. So how did they get there?

KELSEY SNELL, BYLINE: You know, it's not just bipartisan. It is passed with huge support every year for roughly 60 years. You know, Trump vetoed the bill in a fight over something completely unrelated. That's a piece of decades-old law that involves liability protections that social media companies use to avoid lawsuits over content shared on their platforms. You know, Republicans were just not willing to join Trump on this fight, particularly over this defense bill, and they abandoned him on it. This is the first veto override of his presidency, and it happened with an absolutely huge margin.

CORNISH: I want to talk about the election for a bit because Missouri Senator Josh Hawley says he plans to object when Congress officially counts the electoral votes on January 6. How will that play out?

SNELL: So Hawley is saying he's speaking up for people who feel disenfranchised. And he's basing this off of baseless claims of voter fraud that have been disputed by numerous agencies, including Attorney General William Barr. He and at least one House Republican are coming together on this, and other Republicans plan to object and are filing longshot lawsuits to try to interfere. But most Republicans say these efforts undermine faith in the election and in democracy. Here's how Utah Senator Mitt Romney, who ran for president in 2012, described it to reporters on Capitol Hill.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

SNELL: It continues to spread the false rumor that somehow the election was stolen. Look. I lost in 2012. I know what it's like to lose. And there were people that said there are irregularities. I have people today who say, hey, you know what, you really won - but I didn't.

CORNISH: Given the objections, even within the GOP, do the naysayers have a chance of changing the outcome of the election?

SNELL: No. Republican leaders have repeatedly, repeatedly warned that forcing a vote on this is actually damaging to every Republican because they'll be forced to publicly vote to split with President Trump, who is still quite popular with many, many Republicans. If Hawley objects, he will force an additional debate and additional votes. But in the end, virtually everyone in the Capitol agrees that the election result will be affirmed.

CORNISH: Stepping back a bit, President Trump has been at odds with his GOP allies the last couple of weeks in many other ways. I mean, what could this consequential runoff election in Georgia mean for him next week?

SNELL: You know, voting to override the veto was the Senate's last act before Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler faced runoff elections in Georgia on January 5. Those races will determine the control of the Senate. That is very consequential. And Trump is tweeting today encouraging primaries against the No. 2 GOP leader in the Senate and complaining about the Senate in general.

Lisa Murkowski of Alaska had a really interesting way of explaining it. She told reporters in the Capitol that Trump is pitting Republicans against each other. She says it's dispiriting and that Trump sets up loyalty tests only to throw loyal people under the bus. You know, this has caused Republicans to reverse themselves several times and they've had to scramble their messaging over and over. This last-minute infighting is just bad for Senate Republicans no matter how you cut it.

CORNISH: That's NPR congressional correspondent Kelsey Snell. Thank you for your reporting.

SNELL: Thanks for having me.

Copyright © 2021 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
subscribe to The NPR Politics Podcast podcast The Senate on Friday overrode President Trump's veto for the first time. Lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to finalize the National Defense Authorization Act despite the president's objection to it. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: The Senate started 2021 by overriding for the first time a veto from President Trump.

# data[].attributes.headline
Federal Execution Can Proceed For Lisa Montgomery, Court Rules

# data[].attributes.subject
Federal Execution Can Proceed For Lisa Montgomery, Court Rules

# data[].attributes.body
NPR January 2, 2021
This show judicial branches power by giving this woman death penalty for murder. This an example of judicial branch judging a person crime.
I disagreed because I think death penalty is not enough for her crime and the death penalty keep on being delayed, so just give her life sentence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lisa Marie Montgomery said she was interested in purchasing a puppy. But once the Kansas woman arrived at Bobbie Jo Stinnett's Missouri home in 2004, she attacked the pregnant 23-year-old, using a rope to strangle her until she lost consciousness.

With a kitchen knife, Montgomery cut the 8-month-old fetus out of Stinnett's womb, taking it to raise as her own. Stinnett was found later by her mother, dead in a pool of blood.

Montgomery confessed to the killing, and the baby - who survived - was returned to the father. For the past 13 years, Montgomery has been incarcerated, the only woman currently on federal death row, waiting as her attorneys file appeals.

Montgomery was originally scheduled to be executed last month, but that was postponed to January when her attorneys contracted the coronavirus after visiting her in prison and a federal judge granted them more time to file a petition for clemency.

Last week, the judge ruled that the execution should be delayed again - saying the Bureau of Prisons couldn't set a new date while the case was on hold. But on Friday, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that ruled the execution can proceed.

Barring any successful last-minute appeal, the 52-year-old Montgomery will become, on Jan. 12, the first female federal inmate to be executed in nearly 70 years.

Montgomery's attorney says the crime was "the direct result of her mental illness and trauma" and says Montgomery was repeated raped by her stepfather and first husband and has brain damage and multiple mental illnesses. Her attorney plans to ask the full circuit court to reconsider the ruling.

"Given everything we know about Lisa Montgomery's mental illness, her lifetime of horrific torture and trauma, and the many people in positions of authority who could have intervened to save her but never did, there can be no principled reason to carry out her execution," attorney Meaghan VerGow said in a statement.

VerGow also asked President Trump to commute her sentence to life without possibility of release.

If Montgomery's execution is carried out, it could be one of the last federal executions to take place for the foreseeable future. President-elect Joe Biden, who will take office about a week after the execution, has said he wants to eliminate the federal death penalty.

The most recent federal execution of a female death row inmate took place in 1953, when Bonnie Heady was put to death after kidnapping and killing a 6-year-old from Missouri.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal Execution Can Proceed For Lisa Montgomery, Court Rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lisa Marie Montgomery said she was interested in purchasing a puppy. But once the Kansas woman arrived at Bobbie Jo Stinnett's Missouri home in 2004, she attacked the pregnant 23-year-old, using a rope to strangle her until she lost consciousness. With a kitchen knife, Montgomery cut the 8-month-old fetus out of Stinnett's womb, taking it to raise as her own.

# data[].attributes.headline
Utah governor issues statewide mask mandate to stem coronavirus: "We all need to do more"

# data[].attributes.subject
Utah governor issues statewide mask mandate to stem coronavirus: "We all need to do more"

# data[].attributes.body
CBS NEWS NOVEMBER 9, 2020
This is federalism because one person (Utah governor) and the health industry are requiring the people to wear face covering in public, work, and when they are within 6 feet of who don't live in their household. The Utah governor is using his power to pass mask mandates within this state. I agreed with this because the corona have affected soo much people life, but with this requirement, there will be less people being affected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Utah Governor Gary Herbert declared a state of emergency Sunday night and ordered a statewide mask mandate in an attempt to stem a surge in coronavirus patient hospitalizations that is testing the state's hospital capacity. Herbert and the Utah Department of Health issued executive and public health orders requiring residents to wear face coverings in public, at work and when they are within 6 feet of people who don't live in their households.

Several of the state's largest counties already required masks, but Herbert, a Republican, had resisted extending the rule to the entire state despite a two-month surge of cases.

Herbert said in a televised address Sunday night that the time to debate masks had passed, while saying his orders won't shut down the economy.

His new set of rules also calls for a two-week pause on extracurricular activities including athletic events, with the exception of high school championship games and Intercollegiate athletic events as long as testing and social distancing guidelines are adhered to. Herbert also ordered a limit on "casual social gatherings" to household members only.

The orders go into effect at 1 p.m. local time (MST) on Monday and run until November 23.

By Jan. 1, all students at public and private universities who attend at least one class per week in person must be tested for COVID-19 on a weekly basis.

State officials sent out an emergency alert to state residents on their phones Sunday to alert them to Herbert's televised address outlining the orders.

Earlier Sunday, Utah health authorities announced a new high in the number of coronavirus hospitalizations as well as 2,386 more COVID-19 cases as the pandemic surges. Some 424 people were hospitalized with COVID-19 on Sunday, according to the Utah Department of Health. On Friday, hospitalizations stood at a then-record 395 COVID-19 patients.

Herbert's office said in a statement Sunday that the mask-wearing mandate will be extended beyond Nov. 23 "for the foreseeable future."

Utah's seven-day average of new daily cases has reached a record-breaking 2,290. In the past two weeks, Utah's positivity average - the percentage of coronavirus tests that are positive - has increased from 18.5% to 20.6%, according to state data. At least 659 residents have died of the coronavirus and more than 132,000 have been infected.

Utah also will ramp up its contact tracing efforts and its testing of younger individuals who usually show no symptoms of the coronavirus, including the college testing, testing for students engaged in extracurricular activities and, eventually, workplace testing for people 35 and younger, Herbert's office said. Utah National Guard personnel will help in contact tracing, it said.

"To make a real difference in slowing the spread of COVID-19 and turning around the dire situation in our hospitals, we all need to do more," the governor said in a statement. "This is a sacrifice for all of us. But as we slow the spread it will make all the difference for our overworked healthcare workers, who desperately need our help."

The announcement came after Utah's largest teachers union called on Friday for the governor to move all public secondary schools in high coronavirus transmission areas to remote learning.

The Utah Education Association also called for Herbert to suspend all extracurricular activities that can't comply with social distancing guidelines in high transmission areas from the Thanksgiving holiday throughout winter break.

Herbert has said he's concerned that people are feeling fatigued from the pandemic and urged Utah residents to follow masking and social distancing requirements.

The coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms for most people, but for some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness or death.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Utah governor issues statewide mask mandate to stem coronavirus: "We all need to do more"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Utah Governor Gary Herbert declared a state of emergency Sunday night and ordered a statewide mask mandate in an attempt to stem a surge in coronavirus patient hospitalizations that is testing the state's hospital capacity.

# data[].attributes.headline
THE 2020 ELECTION,A RACE IN WHICH EVERYTHING HAPPENS AND NOTHING MATTERS September 3, 2020    The New Yorker

# data[].attributes.subject
THE 2020 ELECTION,A RACE IN WHICH EVERYTHING HAPPENS AND NOTHING MATTERS September 3, 2020    The New Yorker

# data[].attributes.body
This is an example of Popular Sovereignty because Popular Sovereignty is about votes and in the first paragraph of this article it is talking about how trump claims the election is rigged because Biden's voters are voting twice. In my opinion I think that Trump just doesn't want to lose. He wants to use everything he can in order to become president again.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump’s Coronavirus Response Has Single-Handedly Created a New Federalism

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump’s Coronavirus Response Has Single-Handedly Created a New Federalism

# data[].attributes.body
This article is an example of Federalism because the article talks about how the federal government jumped in to slow down and control the coronavirus spread.
In my opinion, this is very helpful of them since the coronavirus spreads so quickly and is a big threat to many people with health complications.

# data[].attributes.headline
Warnock, ossoff win in Georgia, handing Dems senate control 

# data[].attributes.subject
Warnock, ossoff win in Georgia, handing Dems senate control 

# data[].attributes.body
Ap news January 6,2021

Because people use their power to vote,
Warnock one of the senator candidate won the senate election in Georgia.

I disagreed with this because Warnock sounding like he being overconfident saying something on the line of I am Georgia, while the person he was battling was saying something on the line as "We are Georgia and we will keep going".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ATLANTA (AP) - Democrats won both Georgia Senate seats - and with them, the U.S. Senate majority - as final votes were counted Wednesday, serving President Donald Trump a stunning defeat in his turbulent final days in office while dramatically improving the fate of President-elect Joe Biden's progressive agenda.

Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, Democratic challengers who represented the diversity of their party's evolving coalition, defeated Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler two months after Biden became the first Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state since 1992.

Warnock, who served as pastor for the same Atlanta church where civil rights leader the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. preached, becomes the first African American from Georgia elected to the Senate. And Ossoff becomes the state's first Jewish senator and, at 33 years old, the Senate's youngest member.

This week's elections were expected to mark the formal finale to the tempestuous 2020 election season, although the Democrats' resounding success was overshadowed by chaos and violence in Washington, where angry Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol to stop Congress from certifying Biden's victory.

Wednesday's unprecedented siege drew fierce criticism of Trump's leadership from within his own party, and combined with the bad day in Georgia, marked one of the darkest days of his divisive presidency.

Still, the Democrats' twin victories in Georgia represented a striking shift in the state's politics as the swelling number of diverse, college-educated voters flex their power in the heart of the Deep South. They also cemented the transformation of Georgia, once a solidly Republican state, into one of the nation's premier battlegrounds for the foreseeable future.

In an emotional address early Wednesday, Warnock vowed to work for all Georgians whether they voted for him or not, citing his personal experience with the American dream. His mother, he said, used to pick "somebody else's cotton" as a teenager.

"The other day, because this is America, the 82-year-old hands that used to pick somebody else's cotton picked her youngest son to be a United States senator," he said. "Tonight, we proved with hope, hard work and the people by our side, anything is possible."

Loeffler, who remains a senator until the results of Tuesday's election are finalized, returned to Washington on Wednesday morning to join a small group of senators planning to challenge Congress' vote to certify Biden's victory. She didn't get a chance to vocalize her objection before the violent protesters stormed the Capitol.

Georgia's other runoff election pitted Perdue, a 71-year-old former business executive who held his Senate seat until his term expired Sunday, against Ossoff, a former congressional aide and journalist.

"This campaign has been about health and jobs and justice for the people of this state - for all the people of this state," Ossoff said in a speech broadcast on social media Wednesday morning. "Whether you were for me, or against me, I'll be for you in the U.S. Senate. I will serve all the people of the state."

Trump's false claims of voter fraud cast a dark shadow over the runoff elections, which were held only because no candidate hit the 50% threshold in the general election. He raised the prospect of voter fraud as votes were being cast and likened the Republicans who run Georgia's election system to "chickens with their heads cut off" during a Wednesday rally in Washington.

Gabriel Sterling, a top official with the Georgia secretary of state's office and a Republican, said there was "no evidence of any irregularities."

"The biggest thing we've seen is from the president's fertile mind of finding fraud where none exists," he said.

Both contests tested whether the political coalition that fueled Biden's November victory was an anti-Trump anomaly or part of a new electoral landscape. To win in Tuesday's elections - and in the future - Democrats needed strong African American support.

AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 3,700 voters in Tuesday's contests, found that Black voters made up roughly 30% of the electorate, and almost all of them - 94% - backed Ossoff and Warnock. The Democrats also relied on the backing of younger voters, people earning less than $50,000 annually and newcomers to the state.

The Republican coalition backing Loeffler and Perdue was the mirror opposite: white, older, wealthier and longtime Georgia residents.

The coalition closely resembles the one that narrowly handed Georgia's Electoral College votes to Biden in November, making him the first Democratic presidential candidate to win the state in almost three decades.

Trump's claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election, while meritless, resonated with Republican voters in Georgia. About 7 in 10 agreed with his false assertion that Biden was not the legitimately elected president, AP VoteCast found.

Election officials across the country, including the Republican governors in Arizona and Georgia, as well as Trump's former attorney general, William Barr, have confirmed that there was no widespread fraud in the November election. Nearly all the legal challenges from Trump and his allies have been dismissed by judges, including two tossed by the Supreme Court, where three Trump-nominated justices preside.

Publicly and privately, some Republicans acknowledged that Trump's monthslong push to undermine the integrity of the nation's electoral system may have contributed to the GOP's losses in Georgia.

"It turns out that telling the voters that the election was rigged is not a great way to turn out your voters," said Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, a Republican and a frequent Trump critic.

Even with Trump's claims, voters in both parties were drawn to the polls because of the high stakes. AP VoteCast found that 6 in 10 Georgia voters say Senate party control was the most important factor in their vote.

Turnout exceeded both sides' expectations. Ultimately, more people cast ballots in the runoffs than voted in Georgia's 2016 presidential election.

Former President Barack Obama, the nation's first Black president, issued a statement praising the election of Georgia's first African American senator and his ability to improve divisions in Washington.

"Georgia's first Black senator will make the (Senate) chamber more reflective of our country as a whole and open the door for a Congress that can forego gridlock for gridlock's sake to focus instead on the many crises facing our nation," Obama said.

___

Peoples reported from New York. Bynum reported from Savannah, Ga. Associated Press writers Haleluya Hadero, Angie Wang, Sophia Tulp, Ben Nadler and Kate Brumback in Atlanta contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Warnock, Ossoff win in Georgia, handing Dems Senate control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ATLANTA (AP) - Democrats won both Georgia Senate seats - and with them, the U.S. Senate majority - as final votes were counted Wednesday, serving President Donald Trump a stunning defeat in his turbulent final days in office while dramatically improving the fate of President-elect Joe Biden's progressive agenda.

# data[].attributes.headline
Democrats Ready Impeachment Charge Against Trump for Inciting Capitol Mob

# data[].attributes.subject
Democrats Ready Impeachment Charge Against Trump for Inciting Capitol Mob

# data[].attributes.body
The New York Times Jan. 8, 2021
This is an example of check and balances because Ms.Pelosi and top democratic leaders are pressing the vice president to invoke the 25th amendment for trump to be in wrest, while the republican are pressuring Trump to resign his seat.

I disagree with this because like what the point of protecting or forcing trump to resign his seat when he about to leave office.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Speaker Nancy Pelosi threatened decisive action against the president for his role in the insurrection against Congress if he refused to resign.

"If the president does not leave office imminently and willingly, the Congress will proceed with our action," Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in a letter on Friday. Credit... Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

[Here's what you need to know about President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s Inauguration Day.]
WASHINGTON - Democrats laid the groundwork on Friday for impeaching President Trump a second time, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California threatened to bring him up on formal charges if he did not resign "immediately" over his role in inciting a violent mob attack on the Capitol this week.

The threat was part of an all-out effort by furious Democrats, backed by a handful of Republicans, to pressure Mr. Trump to leave office in disgrace after the hourslong siege by his supporters on Wednesday on Capitol Hill. Although he has only 12 days left in the White House, they argued he was a direct danger to the nation.

Ms. Pelosi and other top Democratic leaders continued to press Vice President Mike Pence and the cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to wrest power from Mr. Trump, though Mr. Pence was said to be against it. The speaker urged Republican lawmakers to pressure the president to resign immediately. And she took the unusual step of calling Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to discuss how to limit Mr. Trump's access to the nation's nuclear codes and then publicized it.

"If the president does not leave office imminently and willingly, the Congress will proceed with our action," Ms. Pelosi wrote in a letter to colleagues.

At least one Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, followed Ms. Pelosi's lead and told The Anchorage Daily News that she was considering leaving the Republican Party altogether because of Mr. Trump.

"I want him out," she said. "He has caused enough damage."

At the White House, Mr. Trump struck a defiant tone, insisting that he would remain a potent force in American politics as aides and allies abandoned him and his post-presidential prospects turned increasingly bleak. Behind closed doors, he made clear that he would not resign and expressed regret about releasing a video on Thursday committing to a peaceful transition of power and condemning the violence at the Capitol that he had egged on a day before.

He said on Twitter on Friday morning that he would not attend President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s inauguration, the first incumbent in 150 years to skip his successor's swearing-in. Hours later, Twitter "permanently suspended" his beloved account, which had more than 88 million followers, "due to the risk of further incitement of violence."

Federal law enforcement officials announced charges against at least 13 people in connection with the storming of the Capitol, including Richard Barnett, 60, of Gravette, Ark., who had posted a picture of himself on social media sitting in Ms. Pelosi's office during the mayhem with his feet up on a desk, and a Republican state delegate from West Virginia.

Among enraged Democrats, an expedited impeachment appeared to be the most attractive option to remove Mr. Trump and register their outrage at his role in encouraging what became an insurrection. Roughly 170 of them in the House had signed onto a single article that Representatives David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Ted Lieu of California, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and others intended to introduce on Monday, charging the president with "willfully inciting violence against the government of the United States."

Democratic senators weighed in with support, and some Republicans appeared newly open to the idea. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska indicated he would be amenable to considering articles of impeachment at a trial. A spokesman for Senator Susan Collins of Maine said she was "outraged" by Mr. Trump's role in the violence, but could not comment on an impeachment case given the possibility she could soon be sitting in the jury.

Even Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader and one of Mr. Trump's most influential allies for the past four years, told confidants he was done with Donald Trump. Mr. McConnell did not directly weigh on a possible impeachment case, but he circulated a memo to senators making clear that under the Senate's current rules, no trial could effectively be convened before Jan. 20, after Mr. Trump leaves office and Mr. Biden is sworn in, unless all 100 senators agreed to allow it sooner.

It was a fitting denouement for a president who, despite years of norm-shattering behavior, has acted largely without consequence throughout his presidency, showing no impulse to change his ways, despite being impeached in Congress, defeated at the ballot box and now belatedly shunned by some members of his own party.

By Friday evening, Ms. Pelosi had not made a final decision on whether to proceed with impeachment and was wary of rushing into such a momentous step. She issued a statement saying she had instructed the House Rules Committee to be ready to move ahead with either an impeachment resolution or legislation creating a nonpartisan panel of experts envisaged in the 25th Amendment to consult with Mr. Pence about the president's fitness to serve.

Democrats agreed it was logistically possible to vote on articles of impeachment as soon as next week, but they were weighing how to justify bypassing the usual monthslong deliberative process of collecting documents, witnesses and the president's defense. Others worried that Mr. Trump's base would rally more forcefully around him if Democrats pushed forward with impeaching him again, undermining their goal of relegating the 45th president to the ash heap of history.

Republicans who only days before had led the charge to overturn Mr. Trump's electoral defeat said impeaching him now would shatter the unity that was called for after the Capitol siege.

Image

Workers on Friday in the Capitol preparing for President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s inauguration ceremony. Credit... Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

"Impeaching the president with just 12 days left in his term will only divide our country more," said Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, just a day after he voted twice to overturn Mr. Biden's legitimate victory in key swing states.

Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, issued a nearly identical statement.

Democrats, too, were concerned about plunging Washington into a divisive, time-consuming and politically fraught drama that would overshadow and constrain Mr. Biden's agenda and stomp on his attempt to unify the country.

During an appearance in Wilmington, Del., Mr. Biden declined to directly weigh in on plans to impeach Mr. Trump saying, "What the Congress decides to do is for them to decide." But he made clear his energies were being spent elsewhere.

"If we were six months out, we should be moving everything to get him out of office - impeaching him again, trying to invoke the 25th Amendment, whatever it took to get him out of office," Mr. Biden said. "But I am focused now on us taking control as president and vice president on the 20th and get our agenda moving as quickly as we can."

Mr. Trump had told advisers in the days before the march that he wanted to join his supporters in going to the Capitol, but White House officials said no, according to people briefed on the discussions. The president had also expressed interest beforehand in calling in the National Guard to hold off anti-Trump counterprotesters who might show up, the people said, only to turn around and resist calls for bringing those troops in after the rioting by his loyalists broke out.

On Friday, Mr. Biden had harsh criticism for Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas, Republicans who had lodged objections to his Electoral College victory on Wednesday amid the mayhem at the Capitol. As some leading Senate Democrats called on them to resign, Mr. Biden said the pair had perpetuated the "big lie" that his election had been fraudulent, comparing it to the work of the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

The recriminations played out on a day when workers in the Capitol were literally repairing the damage that had been done two days before, when a mob of supporters, egged on by Mr. Trump, stormed the Capitol as lawmakers were formalizing Mr. Biden's electoral victory. Lawmakers mourned the death of a Capitol Police officer who succumbed to injuries sustained while defending the building.

From the same office ransacked by the mob, Ms. Pelosi was working furiously on Friday to try to contain Mr. Trump. She urged Republicans to follow the model of Watergate, when members of their party prevailed upon President Richard M. Nixon to resign and avoid the ignominy of an impeachment.

She also said she had spoken with General Milley about "preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes."

A spokesman for General Milley, Col. Dave Butler, confirmed that the two had spoken and said the general had "answered her questions regarding the process of nuclear command authority." But some Defense Department officials have privately expressed anger that political leaders seemed to be trying to get the Pentagon to do the work of Congress and cabinet secretaries, who have legal options to remove a president.

While military officials can refuse to carry out orders they view as illegal, they cannot proactively remove the president from the chain of command. That would be a military coup, these officials said.

Ms. Pelosi elaborated on her thinking in a private call with House Democrats, indicating she was particularly concerned about Mr. Trump's behavior while he remained commander in chief of the armed forces, with the authority to order nuclear strikes.

"He's unhinged," Ms. Pelosi, according to Democrats familiar with her remarks. "We aren't talking about anything besides an unhinged person."

She added: "We can't move on. If we think we can move on then we are failing the American people."

Democrats appeared to be largely united after the call, which lasted more than three hours, that the chamber needed to send a strong message to Americans and the world that Mr. Trump's rhetoric and the violence that resulted from it would not go unanswered.

Ms. Pelosi had asked one of her most trusted deputies who prosecuted Democrats' first impeachment case against Mr. Trump, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, to give a frank assessment of the potential drawbacks of impeachment during the session.

Mr. Schiff did so, but later issued a statement saying, "Congress should act to begin impeachment proceedings as the only instrument wholly within our power to remove a president who has so manifestly and repeatedly violated the Constitution and put our nation at grave risk."

At least one Democrat, Representative Kurt Schrader, a centrist from Oregon, argued against impeachment, likening the move to an "old-fashioned lynching" of Mr. Trump, and arguing it would turn the president into a martyr. He later apologized for the analogy.

A bipartisan group of centrist senators, including several who helped draft a stimulus compromise last month, discussed the possibility of drafting a formal censure resolution against Mr. Trump. But it was unclear if a meaningful attempt to build support for censure would get off the ground, especially with Democrats pushing for a stiffer punishment.

After years of deference to the president, leading Republicans in Congress made no effort to defend him, and some offered stinging rebukes. At least a few appeared open to the possibility of impeachment, which if successful could also disqualify Mr. Trump from holding political office in the future.

Mr. Sasse said he would "definitely consider whatever articles they might move because I believe the president has disregarded his oath of office."

"He swore an oath to the American people to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution - he acted against that," Mr. Sasse said on CBS. "What he did was wicked."

Senior Republican aides predicted other senators could adopt a similar posture, so deep was their fury at Mr. Trump. But they held back publicly, waiting to better understand a volatile and rapidly evolving situation.

If the House did impeach, and the Senate put Mr. Trump on trial, 17 Republicans or more would most likely have to join Democrats to win a conviction. That was a politically perilous and unlikely decision given his continued hold on millions of the party's voters.

At the same time Republicans in Washington were chastising Mr. Trump, the Republican National Committee re-elected Ronna McDaniel, a Trump ally and his handpicked candidate, as its chairwoman for another term, and Tommy Hicks Jr., a close friend of Donald Trump Jr.'s, as the co-chairman.

Political risks for Republicans breaking ranks were also on vivid display on Friday at National Airport near Washington, where several dozen jeering supporters of Mr. Trump accosted Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, angrily denouncing the Republican as a "traitor" and a "liar" for voting to formalize Mr. Biden's victory.

"It's going to be like this forever, wherever you go, for the rest of your life," one woman taunted to Mr. Graham, who had been one of Mr. Trump's leading Senate allies and had initially humored his baseless claims of widespread election fraud.

Nicholas Fandos and Luke Broadwater reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Reporting was contributed by Peter Baker, Helene Cooper, Emily Cochrane and Catie Edmondson from Washington.

The Trump Impeachment ›

Answers to your questions about the impeachment process:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Democrats Ready Impeachment Charge Against Trump for Inciting Capitol Mob

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Speaker Nancy Pelosi threatened decisive action against the president for his role in the insurrection against Congress if he refused to resign. [Here's what you need to know about President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s Inauguration Day .]

# data[].attributes.headline
Senate sends Trump defense bill he has vowed to veto

# data[].attributes.subject
Senate sends Trump defense bill he has vowed to veto

# data[].attributes.body
AP News, December 11, 2020

This is an example of the legislative branch: Despite Donald Trump's threat to veto a wide-ranging defense policy bill for not clamping down big tech companies he claimed were biased, the Senate approved it and sent it to him. This shows that the Senate has the ability to create bills.

I don't have anything against the Senate being able to create bills. As long as it works, it works.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Friday approved a wide-ranging defense policy bill, sending it to President Donald Trump, despite his threat to veto the bill because it does not clamp down on big tech companies he claims were biased during the election.

The 84-13 vote mirrored an earlier, overwhelming margin in the House, suggesting that both chambers have enough votes to override a potential veto.

The Senate vote had been expected Thursday but was delayed after Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky objected to the measure, saying it could limit Trump's ability to draw down U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Germany.

Congress has approved the bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, for nearly 60 years in a row. The current version affirms 3% pay raises for U.S. troops and authorizes more than $740 billion in military programs and construction.

Trump has vowed to veto the bill unless lawmakers impose limits on social media companies he claims were biased against him during the election. Trump has also said he wants Congress to strip out a provision of the bill that allows renaming of military bases such as Fort Benning and Fort Hood that honor Confederate leaders.

Paul said Friday that his main point in filibustering the bill "was to point out that the president should have the prerogative to end a war, not just to start wars.″

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, hailed the bill's passage, calling it "the most important bill we'll do all year."

The defense authorization law "is what the Constitution tells us we have to do″ in Congress, Inhofe said. "We must protect freedom, democracy and peace, and support our troops. I look forward to it becoming law before the end of the year."

The bill's approval was never in doubt, although Paul's actions cast uncertainty on the timing. Paul said Friday that "neoconservatives" such as Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., "are inconsistent in saying they want ... to give the commander-in-chief powers to begin war, but then they want to restrain and hamstring a president from ending a war. I think it's a pretty important principle to discuss so we did hold things up for a day.″

Two amendments addressing troop deployment could create "535 commanders-in-chief in Congress," Paul said, hampering the president's ability to draw down troops in Afghanistan and Germany. Democrats support the measure because they oppose Trump, Paul said, but the amendment would also apply to future presidents, including President-elect Joe Biden.

One amendment, co-sponsored by Cheney and Democratic Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, an Afghanistan veteran, would block troop withdrawals in Afghanistan unless the Pentagon submits inter-agency reports certifying that the drawdowns would not jeopardize national security. A separate provision pushed by Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, and other lawmakers would limit planned troop withdrawals in Germany.

Paul singled out Cheney by name in a floor speech, saying she and her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, share a neoconservative belief in "perpetual war."

"The philosophy of these people is about war and substantiating war and making sure that it becomes and is perpetual war,″ Paul said.

Cheney called Paul's actions "inexcusable" and charged that he was risking delay of hazardous duty pay to hundreds of thousands of service members and blocking Congress from completing its greatest duty: providing for the nation's defense.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a rare break with Trump, urged passage of the measure despite Trump's threat to veto it. McConnell, R-Ky., said it was important for Congress to continue a nearly 60-year streak of passing the National Defense Authorization Act.

"This NDAA will unlock more than $740 billion for the training, tools and cutting-edge equipment that our service members and civilian employees need to defend American lives and American interests,″ McConnell said. "It will give our troops the 3% pay raise they deserve. It'll keep our forces ready to deter China and stand strong in the Indo-Pacific.″

The Democratic-controlled House overwhelmingly approved the defense bill on Tuesday, defying Trump's veto threat and setting up a possible showdown with the Republican president in the waning days of his administration.

A total of 140 Republicans joined 195 Democrats in backing the bill, which received support from more than 80% of the House - well above the two-thirds support required to override a potential veto.

Trump tweeted Tuesday that he will veto "the very weak" defense bill unless it repeals Section 230, a part of the communications code that shields Twitter, Facebook and other tech giants from content liability. The White House said in a policy statement that "Section 230 facilitates the spread of disinformation online and is a serious threat to our national security and election integrity. It should be repealed.″

The dispute over social media content - a battle cry of conservatives who say the social media giants treat them unfairly - interjects an unrelated but complicated issue into a bill that Congress takes pride in having passed unfailingly for nearly 60 years. It follows Trump's bid over the summer to sabotage the package with a veto threat over Confederate base names.

"The administration respects the legacy of the millions of American servicemen and women who have served with honor at these military bases, and who, from these locations, have fought, bled and died for their country,″ the White House statement said.

If he does veto the defense bill, Congress could cut short its Christmas recess to hold override votes.

"I think we can override the veto, if in fact he vetoes," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "I hope he does not veto. I hope he reconsiders.″

The defense measure guides Pentagon policy and cements decisions about troop levels, new weapons systems and military readiness, military personnel policy and other military goals. Many programs can only go into effect if the bill is approved, including military construction.

Romney called Trump's plan to remove thousands of U.S. troops from Germany "a grave error" and "a gift to Russia" that undermines the mutual commitment of Europe and the U.S. to deter Russian and Chinese aggression.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Senate sends Trump defense bill he has vowed to veto

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Friday approved a wide-ranging defense policy bill, sending it to President Donald Trump, despite his threat to veto the bill because it does not clamp down on big tech companies he claims were biased during the election.

# data[].attributes.headline
Joe Biden's top Cabinet contenders come into focus

# data[].attributes.subject
Joe Biden's top Cabinet contenders come into focus

# data[].attributes.body
CBS News, November 19, 2020

This is an example of executive branch because Joe Biden has the power to elect cabinet members.

I agree with having the president be granted the ability to elect cabinet members because it does not cause big issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wilmington, Delaware - With a little more than 60 days until inauguration, President-elect Joe Biden does not appear to be in a hurry to name nominees for top Cabinet positions. But that isn't stopping speculation - or the jockeying to serve in his administration.

Close Biden loyalists are expected to be rewarded with top appointments, while former primary rivals Pete Buttigieg and Senator Bernie Sanders continue to express interest in top jobs, both publicly and through Biden aides involved in the process. Transition officials initially envisioned Buttigieg as veterans affairs secretary, but he is now under consideration for a foreign policy role.

Several people familiar with the ongoing process also say that diversity - of age, gender, race and ideology - will be an important factor in making final decisions, more so than in previous Democratic presidential transitions.

Mr. Biden's ultimate selections will also be driven by policy considerations and a potential nominee's previous public service record. Loyalty or a history of working alongside Mr. Biden will also be an advantage.

The process is expected to remain in flux for the next few weeks, as Mr. Biden continues to deliberate with his most senior aides and focuses first on filling out key West Wing positions.

Foreign policy is a top area of focus. So far, Tony Blinken, Mr. Biden's top campaign adviser on global issues, is the front-runner for secretary of state, according to three people familiar with the ongoing deliberations.

Mr. Biden first began working with Blinken more than 15 years ago when he led the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Blinken served as Democratic staff director. Their relationship was cemented at the White House when Mr. Biden was vice president and Blinken was his national security adviser. Blinken rose to deputy secretary of state by the end of the Obama administration.

CBS News reported last week that Blinken is already serving as Mr. Biden's global liaison, acting as the master scheduler for the president-elect's phone calls with world leaders who have been offering their congratulations. Blinken's role is essential, since the State Department has been blocked from providing assistance with the calls by the Trump administration.

At Mr. Biden's first virtual national security briefing Tuesday, Blinken appeared with 12 other global experts arrayed in Zoom boxes. But afterward, Blinken emerged side-by-side with the president-elect as they exited the site of the briefing at The Queen theater in Wilmington - a rare in-person connection during the mostly virtual transition.

Blinken's current work with business partner Michele Flournoy at their global strategic advisory firm WestExec Advisors, presents a potential complication, as she is also widely viewed as a top pick for the Biden Cabinet. Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense for policy, is the leading candidate for defense secretary and would be the first woman in the role, according to four people familiar with the transition deliberations.

Former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice also remains in the mix for secretary of state. Mr. Biden values her White House experience and service as Obama's first U.N. ambassador, both of which also made her a potential Biden running mate. One issue for Rice is the challenge of winning a confirmation vote in a potentially Republican-led Senate, where she's been a frequent target of the GOP, who have criticized her for past public statements about what happened during the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Another leading foreign policy adviser is expected to be Avril Haines, who is a top candidate for national security adviser, according to three people familiar with the process. She served as deputy national security adviser and deputy director of the CIA during the Obama administration. Haines rode with Mr. Biden to his national security briefing Monday in Wilmington, and he was seen helping her out of the SUV.

Buttigieg, meanwhile, is under consideration for U.N. ambassador. Aides to the military veteran and former South Bend, Indiana mayor were told that some transition officials envisioned him serving as secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. But the mayor made clear, along with his team, his preference for representing the U.S. before the world body or in another Cabinet position, two people familiar with the Cabinet discussions explained. A representative for Buttigieg declined to comment.

One factor in picking a VA secretary will be finding someone with experience managing large organizations, according to people involved in the transition. The VA is one of the largest federal departments and one of the largest hospitals systems in the world, requiring management of hundreds of thousands of employees.

The question of who might serve as attorney general, one of the most high-profile and politically sensitive postings, isn't likely to be answered for several weeks, a number of people familiar with the ongoing search said. At least four names are in the mix for senior positions at the Justice Department.

Outgoing Alabama Democratic Senator Doug Jones, who recently lost his re-election bid, is among those under consideration for attorney general, three people said. A U.S. attorney during the Clinton administration, he successfully prosecuted two members of the Ku Klux Klan involved with the 1963 Birmingham church bombing. His civil rights record was a major factor in Jones's 2017 victory in a special election and was highlighted by Mr. Biden when he campaigned for Jones that year. Many on Capitol Hill believe he would be a safe choice in a closely-divided Senate because of his ties to members of both parties.

But former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is also on the list for the top Justice post. Yates was fired by President Trump for not enforcing the so-called "Muslim travel ban" in the early days of his administration. During the campaign, Yates endorsed Mr. Biden in March and hosted at least three virtual fundraisers for the Democratic ticket.

Also in the mix at the Justice Department: former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who briefly mounted a presidential campaign of his own and is considered a contender. He ran the Civil Rights Division as assistant attorney general during the Clinton administration. But his past work for Bain Capital, a leading investment and corporate consulting firm, could be a roadblock to confirmation.

Several groups, including Latino advocacy organizations, are also pushing California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who succeeded Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she won her Senate seat. If chosen, Becerra would be the second Latino to be U.S. attorney general or the first to be a California senator.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is being pushed by his progressive allies for a spot and is closing in on a role, potentially as labor secretary, according to four sources familiar with the transition deliberations. These sources explained this is the specific area where Mr. Biden and Sanders had the most ideological alignment. The two men spoke after Mr. Biden's election win and thanked each other for the work they put in during the campaign, according to one person familiar with the transition plans.

But the Biden team has some hesitation about pulling Democrats from Congress, a potential detriment to the chances of Sanders or Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth, another military veteran who was cited by several aware of the deliberations as a potential pick in a multitude of jobs. In Vermont, Republican Governor Phil Scott said last month that if Sanders were to be nominated to serve in Mr. Biden's Cabinet, he would appoint as a replacement an independent who would caucus with Democrats.

Federal Reserve Board Governor Lael Brainard is a front runner for Treasury secretary, three sources familiar with the decisions said. Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo is also getting a look but some questioned how progressives would view her appointment after she cut pension benefits for public employees when she was state treasurer.

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is viewed favorably but a clear Cabinet position has not been detailed, these sources said.
Jack Turman contributed to this story. Editor's note: An earlier version of this article stated that if California Attorney General Xavier Becerra were named attorney general, he would be the first Latino to serve in that role, but he would be the second. Alberto Gonzales, appointed by President George W. Bush, was the first.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Joe Biden's top Cabinet contenders come into focus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wilmington, Delaware - With a little more than 60 days until inauguration, President-elect Joe Biden does not appear to be in a hurry to name nominees for top Cabinet positions. But that isn't stopping speculation - or the jockeying to serve in his administration.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Congress Should Impeach Trump Again January 4, 2021

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Congress Should Impeach Trump Again January 4, 2021

# data[].attributes.body
This article is an example of checks and balances because it is explaining why Donald Trump should be impeached because of his abuse of power.
In my opinion I think that this is the right move because of the recent protests and riots Donald Trump has caused.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
And this time, he should be convicted. The country cannot risk his becoming president again.

Neal K. Katyal and

Mr. Katyal and Mr. Koppelman are the authors of "Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump."

Credit... Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times

The emergence of an audio recording of President Trump pressuring the Georgia secretary of state to overturn the results of the election is a harrowing moment in the history of our democracy. And though the number of his days in office is dwindling, the only appropriate response is to impeach Mr. Trump. Again.

Whether he acknowledges it or not, President Trump is leaving the White House on Jan. 20 - but right now, there is nothing stopping him from running in 2024. That is a terrifying prospect, because the way he has conducted himself over the past two months, wielding the power of the presidency to try to steal another term in office, has threatened one of our republic's most essential traditions: the peaceful transfer of power.

Fortunately, our founders anticipated we would face a moment like this, which is one reason Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution entrusts Congress with the power not only to remove a president but also to prevent him or her from ever holding elected office again. Mr. Trump's conduct over the past two months has left our legislators with no choice but to use it. That impeachment inquiry would take time, far more than Mr. Trump has left in office. But it would be well worth it.

Since the election was called in favor of President-elect Joe Biden, Mr. Trump has been relentlessly fomenting doubts about its legitimacy - even as many federal and state courts, including ones whose judges were appointed by Mr. Trump himself, have ruled against his claims. He has reportedly inquired about the idea of enlisting the help of the military to keep him in power.

Most recently, on the phone with Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's secretary of state, he said, "I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have." He added: "We won this state," even though he didn't. In a democracy, you don't find votes. You count them. Most strikingly, Mr. Trump threatened the Georgia officials with criminal prosecution if they didn't comply, saying leaving the vote counts intact would be a "big risk."

This kind of threat may sound familiar, because an eerily similar abuse of power led to Mr. Trump's impeachment just over a year ago. Senator Susan Collins of Maine explained her vote to acquit him by saying she thought he had learned "a pretty big lesson." Clearly, Mr. Trump learned a different lesson - that he was above the law. It's just as William Davie from North Carolina, discussing the position of the presidency at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, predicted: A president who viewed himself to be unimpeachable, he said in 1787, would "spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected."

It's time for Congress, once and for all, to put an end to this.

No one wants to put the country through the turmoil of another impeachment. But we also can't afford to look the other way - for several reasons.

For one, we must establish a precedent that a president who tries to cheat his way to re-election will be held accountable. Sure, this attempt may not have succeeded, but a failed coup should itself be alarming enough. And who is to say there won't be a closer election in the future, with a more competent authoritarian candidate - whose party also has control of the House of Representatives? We need to make sure that Congress has ensured that candidates cannot strong-arm their way into re-election.

We also need to set a precedent that a lame duck president can still be held accountable. If an incumbent, say, threatened to nuke Iran unless the Electoral College sided with him, we would want to have a mechanism by which we could remove him from office. In our Constitution, impeachment is that mechanism, but it is worthless if we never use it.

And last, we cannot risk Mr. Trump's becoming president again - or for that matter, even running again with a chance of winning. This isn't a point about ideology; it's a reflection of the fact that our system may not be able to withstand this lawless man returning to the highest office in the land. Emboldened by our failure to hold him accountable for abusing his power in his first term, who knows what he would do in a nonconsecutive second term? The damage to our institutions from his first four years in office will take generations to undo. Our democracy might not be able to handle another four.

Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, was able to protect Mr. Trump the last time - no doubt because he was afraid of what a truly rigorous trial might show. But he may no longer be able to do so. For one thing, Mr. Trump will soon lack the power of the presidency to dole out favors and punish his enemies. For another, the Senate composition will be different. Already, Democrats have flipped seats in Arizona and Colorado. Republicans who voted to acquit him, like Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, have shown signs they are finally willing to stand up to him.

And Georgians will go to the polls to decide who will represent them in the Senate. Mr. Trump's preferred senators, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, would no doubt try to block an inquiry into his misdeeds. But if these senators lose their seats, a full and robust inquiry in the Senate could be the result, with Chuck Schumer as majority leader.

In 2008, a young member of the Judiciary Committee said, "The business of high crimes and misdemeanors goes to the question of whether or not the person serving as president of the United States put their own interests, their personal interests, ahead of public service." That congressman's name was Mike Pence - and he was exactly right.

We need to convict President Trump and make sure he can never call the White House home again.

Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal), a law professor at Georgetown and a former acting solicitor general of the United States, and Sam Koppelman (@SammyKoppelman), a principal at Fenway Strategies, are the authors of " Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Why Congress Should Impeach Trump Again

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
And this time, he should be convicted. The country cannot risk his becoming president again. Neal K. Katyal and Mr. Katyal and Mr. Koppelman are the authors of "Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump." The emergence of an audio recording of President Trump pressuring the Georgia secretary of state to overturn the results of the election is a harrowing moment in the history of our democracy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects Trump campaign effort to toss ballots just before electors meet

# data[].attributes.subject
Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects Trump campaign effort to toss ballots just before electors meet

# data[].attributes.body
CBS News, December 14, 2020

This article represents the judicial branch because the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied Donald Trump's challenge to the state's recount because Joe Biden won the election by over 20,600 votes.

My opinion on this is that if you run for president and lose, just accept it. Often times there is always a next time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Trump's challenge to the state's recount, which found President-elect Joe Biden won Wisconsin by more than 20,600 votes.

It was the latest legal loss for Mr. Trump in his effort to overturn election results in the key battleground state. The court's decision came down an hour before Wisconsin's electors were slated to cast the state's 10 Electoral College votes for Mr. Biden.

In their challenge to the recount, Mr. Trump's lawyers tried to throw out more than 220,000 absentee ballots that it claimed had been illegally cast by voters in Dane and Milwaukee counties. These ballots included the following: those cast during early in-person absentee voting which the Trump campaign claimed lacked proper written applications; ballots cast by people who improperly claimed they were indefinitely confined, which meant the voters didn't have to provide photo ID; absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing witness address information, a practice that's been in place since 2016; and ballots returned to parks in Madison.

In a 4-3 decision, the majority said that Mr. Trump's challenge to indefinitely confined voters was "without merit" and that he waited too long to challenge the other issues.

"Our laws allow the challenge flag to be thrown regarding various aspects of election administration," Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for the majority. "The challenges raised by the Campaign in this case, however, come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began. Election claims of this type must be brought expeditiously. The Campaign waited until after the election to raise selective challenges that could have been raised long before the election."

Justice Hagedorn, a conservative, joined the court's three liberal justices in the majority. Liberals narrowed the conservative majority on the court from 5-2 to 4-3 when Justice Jill Karofsky won her election in April. In a concurring opinion, Justices Karofsky and Rebecca Dallet said there was no proof of fraud.

"Wisconsin voters complied with the election rulebook. No penalties were committed and the final score was the result of a free and fair election," Justices Dallet and Karofsky wrote.

Chief Justice Patience Roggensack authored one of the dissenting opinions. She did not take issue with the early in-person absentee voting and said there was not enough information about the voters who claimed to be indefinitely confined to know whether they violated the laws. She accused the majority of not answering critical questions about election conductand instead said the majority relied on the campaign waiting too long to challenge the case.

"A significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted," Roggensack wrote. "Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast."

Shortly after the ruling came down, Wisconsin's 10 electors cast their votes for Mr. Biden and Harris. "We made it," Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers said after announcing the results.

Wisconsin Republicans also met Monday to cast their slate of electors for Mr. Trump in the event a court awarded the state to Mr. Trump before Congress counts the votes on January 6, which is a longshot plan. Wisconsin GOP Chair Andrew Hitt said Republicans held the vote to "preserve our role in the electoral process with the final outcome still pending in the courts."

This was the second time the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruledon the recount challenge. Mr. Trump's lawyers initially asked the court to take original action on the appeal earlier this month, but in a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that Mr. Trump had to take the case to a lower court first. On Friday, Reserve Judge Stephen Simanek affirmed the recount's results.

"There is no credible evidence of any misconduct or a wide scale fraud. At issue here simply is whether or not the recount occurred in compliance with the Wisconsin election laws," Judge Simanek said. "The determination of the court is that the petitioner, appellants here have not demonstrated that an erroneous interpretation of Wisconsin's early voting laws happened here."

Mr. Trump and his allies have lost a string of cases in Wisconsin in December. On Saturday, while the Wisconsin Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments in this case, a federal judge appointed by Mr. Trump dismissed a separate effort from the president to overturn Wisconsin's election results.

"This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits," Judge Brett Ludwig wrote. "In his reply brief, plaintiff 'asks that the Rule of Law be followed.' It has been."

Mr. Trump's lawyers appealed that decision.

In another federal case, Judge Pamela Pepper last week dismissed a challenge to the election brought by the chairman of the La Crosse County Republican Party. He was represented by Sidney Powell, one of Mr. Trump's legal allies. That case has been appealed.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court earlier this month declined to take original action on two separate challenges to the election that were brought by allies of Mr. Trump.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
united states presidential election 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects Trump campaign effort to toss ballots just before electors meet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Trump's challenge to the state's recount, which found President-elect Joe Biden won Wisconsin by more than 20,600 votes. It was the latest legal loss for Mr. Trump in his effort to overturn election results in the key battleground state.

# data[].attributes.headline
Utah governor issues statewide mask mandate to stem coronavirus: "We all need to do more"

# data[].attributes.subject
Utah governor issues statewide mask mandate to stem coronavirus: "We all need to do more"

# data[].attributes.body
CBS News, November 9, 2020

This article represents federalism because the Utah governor made the state of Utah to have all citizens be required to wear masks. This shows the state's portion of power.

I agree with this mask mandate because it is important for our health and safety against COVID-19.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Utah Governor Gary Herbert declared a state of emergency Sunday night and ordered a statewide mask mandate in an attempt to stem a surge in coronavirus patient hospitalizations that is testing the state's hospital capacity. Herbert and the Utah Department of Health issued executive and public health orders requiring residents to wear face coverings in public, at work and when they are within 6 feet of people who don't live in their households.

Several of the state's largest counties already required masks, but Herbert, a Republican, had resisted extending the rule to the entire state despite a two-month surge of cases.

Herbert said in a televised address Sunday night that the time to debate masks had passed, while saying his orders won't shut down the economy.

His new set of rules also calls for a two-week pause on extracurricular activities including athletic events, with the exception of high school championship games and Intercollegiate athletic events as long as testing and social distancing guidelines are adhered to. Herbert also ordered a limit on "casual social gatherings" to household members only.

The orders go into effect at 1 p.m. local time (MST) on Monday and run until November 23.

By Jan. 1, all students at public and private universities who attend at least one class per week in person must be tested for COVID-19 on a weekly basis.

State officials sent out an emergency alert to state residents on their phones Sunday to alert them to Herbert's televised address outlining the orders.

Earlier Sunday, Utah health authorities announced a new high in the number of coronavirus hospitalizations as well as 2,386 more COVID-19 cases as the pandemic surges. Some 424 people were hospitalized with COVID-19 on Sunday, according to the Utah Department of Health. On Friday, hospitalizations stood at a then-record 395 COVID-19 patients.

Herbert's office said in a statement Sunday that the mask-wearing mandate will be extended beyond Nov. 23 "for the foreseeable future."

Utah's seven-day average of new daily cases has reached a record-breaking 2,290. In the past two weeks, Utah's positivity average - the percentage of coronavirus tests that are positive - has increased from 18.5% to 20.6%, according to state data. At least 659 residents have died of the coronavirus and more than 132,000 have been infected.

Utah also will ramp up its contact tracing efforts and its testing of younger individuals who usually show no symptoms of the coronavirus, including the college testing, testing for students engaged in extracurricular activities and, eventually, workplace testing for people 35 and younger, Herbert's office said. Utah National Guard personnel will help in contact tracing, it said.

"To make a real difference in slowing the spread of COVID-19 and turning around the dire situation in our hospitals, we all need to do more," the governor said in a statement. "This is a sacrifice for all of us. But as we slow the spread it will make all the difference for our overworked healthcare workers, who desperately need our help."

The announcement came after Utah's largest teachers union called on Friday for the governor to move all public secondary schools in high coronavirus transmission areas to remote learning.

The Utah Education Association also called for Herbert to suspend all extracurricular activities that can't comply with social distancing guidelines in high transmission areas from the Thanksgiving holiday throughout winter break.

Herbert has said he's concerned that people are feeling fatigued from the pandemic and urged Utah residents to follow masking and social distancing requirements.

The coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms for most people, but for some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness or death.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Utah governor issues statewide mask mandate to stem coronavirus: "We all need to do more"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Utah Governor Gary Herbert declared a state of emergency Sunday night and ordered a statewide mask mandate in an attempt to stem a surge in coronavirus patient hospitalizations that is testing the state's hospital capacity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Georgia secretary of state describes call where Trump pressured him to find evidence of voter fraud

# data[].attributes.subject
Georgia secretary of state describes call where Trump pressured him to find evidence of voter fraud

# data[].attributes.body
CBS News, January 10, 2021

This is an example of popular sovereignty because it talks about the people voting.

I agree with having the people vote because the people are who make up the a country. Without any citizens, the U.S. would barely even be a real country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why did the president help incite the riot that killed five people at the Capitol? It may be because, four days earlier, he failed to get the state of Georgia to take away Joe Biden's victory. A week ago, Saturday, Georgia's top election official, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger spent an hour on the phone listening to the president lie and threaten. Mr. Trump spun tales of fraud and told Raffensperger he needed to find 11,780 votes. One more vote than Biden's winning margin in the state. Raffensperger is a life-long Republican, voted for Mr. Trump and contributed to his campaign. But facing the president's wrath he would not choose loyalty over duty.

Brad Raffensperger: I believe I said, "Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is that you have bad data. Our data shows that you did not win the race." Because we have the facts, and the facts are on our side.

Brad Raffensperger had declined to take the president's call. The Trump campaign was suing Georgia officials and Raffensperger felt the call was inappropriate. But the White House kept insisting.

Mark Meadows on White House call: OK, all right. So - Mr. President everybody is on the line...
It was about three in the afternoon, Saturday, January 2, when White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows started the conference call introducing Mr. Trump's lawyers, an attorney for the state of Georgia, Ryan Germany, and secretary of state Raffensperger.

Scott Pelley: Did you know that the call was being recorded?

Brad Raffensperger: No.

Mark Meadows on White House call: So, Mr. President I'll turn it over to you.

Someone gave the recording to the Washington Post.

President Trump on White House call: OK, thank you very much. Hello, Brad and Ryan and everybody...

From the start, the president seemed delusional.
President Trump on White House call: And we won the House, but we won every single statehouse and we won Congress.
Mr. Trump repeated, 30 times, that he won the election. He said he could still win Georgia if Raffensperger would play along.

President Trump on White House call: So, look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes.

Scott Pelley: What was the president asking you to do?

Brad Raffensperger: He was asking us to recalibrate or recalculate, I believe it was, recalculate-- somehow get a different answer. But I'm an engineer. And anyone that's good with numbers knows you can calculate all you want, but the numbers are the numbers.

President Trump on White House call: So, what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.

Scott Pelley: But the words used by the president and the president's chief of staff, "Give me a break," "Cooperate," "Compromise," were they asking you to join them in a conspiracy?

Brad Raffensperger: I guess maybe they were just trying to intimidate me and-- cajole me into something. It wasn't gonna happen.

We have learned the call on January 2, was not Mr. Trump's first attempt. Sources tell us that, last month, the president himself phoned one of the Georgia secretary of state's investigators. A person briefed on the call said Mr. Trump told the investigator they would be a national hero if they found evidence of fraud. But no evidence was found that would change the outcome of the election. Still, on the call with the Georgia secretary of state, Mr. Trump badgered Raffensperger with fantasies of criminality.

President Trump on White House call: The other thing, dead people, so dead people voted. And I think the number is close to 5,000 people.

Scott Pelley: The president said in the call that 5,000 Georgians voted in the name of dead people.

Brad Raffensperger: Right. Well, it was two. Two dead--

Scott Pelley: 2,000?

Brad Raffensperger: No, two. Yeah.

Scott Pelley: A total of two?

Brad Raffensperger: Two people, right. Right here, one, two. Two dead people, not thousands, not hundreds. Two people.

Scott Pelley: How do you know that?

Brad Raffensperger: Because we went back and looked at it, and we searched all the death records, and we looked at day, month, year. So we had two people that had passed away and we'll investigate and see if we can find out who those people were that fraudulently voted for those two dead people.

That is just one of dozens of investigations launched after the election by the Georgia secretary of state.

Scott Pelley: How would you describe the president's claims of vote fraud in Georgia?

Gabriel Sterling: Fantastical, unreasonable. Lacking in any factual reality.

Gabriel Sterling, also a Republican, and a Trump voter, is the chief operating officer for the secretary of state. He walked us through surveillance video that the president and his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, use as their slam-dunk evidence. Here, Giuliani is explaining to Georgia state senators his selectively edited version of the video.
Rudy Giuliani to Georgia state senators: When you look at what you saw on the video, which to me was a smoking gun, powerful smoking gun, well, I don't have to be a genius to figure out what happened. I don't have to be a genius to figure out that those votes are not legitimate votes.
In national ads, the Trump campaign shows just a clip of the video that reveals cases filled with ballots being removed from under a table.
Trump campaign ad: America deserved an honest election. This is what they got: suitcases of ballots added in secret in Georgia...
Gabriel Sterling showed us that Rudy Giuliani was right, you don't have to be a genius to figure out what happened, when you look at all of the video. Sterling says the election workers were told before 10 o'clock election night that they would be going home and would finish the count the next day.

Gabriel Sterling: It's before 10:00. The observers and the press are still in the room to see all of this occur.

With Republican and Democratic observers visible on the video, the still uncounted ballots were placed in official boxes which were labeled, locked with tamper-proof seals and stored below the table.

Gabriel Sterling: This is where they're packing up because they think they're going home. They're packing up to seal them so that nobody can, you know, mess with the ballots when no one's there.

But, less than an hour after the boxes were stored, Sterling says the staff was told they would have to keep counting through the night. So, the ballots were pulled out and counted. Sterling told us President Trump's team had always had the entire, unedited, video.

Gabriel Sterling: From my point of view, they intentionally misled the state senators, the people of Georgia, and the people of the United States about this to cause this conspiracy theory to keep going and keep the disinformation going, which has caused this environment that we're seeing today.

Scott Pelley: Are you saying they lied to the--

Gabriel Sterling: Yes.

Scott Pelley: --Georgia State Senate?

Gabriel Sterling: I'm saying that Rudy Giuliani looked them in the eye and lied.

Brad Raffensperger: And Rudy Giuliani knows that. He also, I believe, you know, he has some ethical standards as a member of the bar. He knows that what he said was not true. But our state senate did not ask us to come in there so that we could rebut what they said. And it was actually left as the gospel truth, and it wasn't. It was fabricated.

In the call, President Trump slanders one of the election workers in the video, a woman named Ruby Freeman, who Georgia officials say is not suspected of tampering with anything.

President Trump on White House call: 18,000 voters having to do with Ruby Freeman. She's a vote scammer, a professional vote scammer and hustler, Ruby Freeman. That was the tape that's been shown all over the world that makes everybody look bad.

The president claimed Freeman put the so-called "ballots hidden in suitcases" through the counter three times resulting in 54,000 bogus votes.

President Trump on White House call: And Brad, why did they put the votes in three times? They put them in three times.
Brad Raffensperger on White House call: Mr. President, they did not put that - we did an audit of that and we proved conclusively (that) they were not scanned three times.
Ruby Freeman is in hiding because of threats - death threats that sterling says other election workers are also receiving.

Gabriel Sterling: And I finally saw one that s-- said the young man's name. It said, "You are a traitor, may God have mercy on your soul." And it had a GIF of a noose slowly swinging. At that point I snapped. I essentially lost it and said, "This has gotta stop."
Sterling news conference: Mr. President...
Five weeks ago, Gabriel Sterling addressed this directly to the president.
Sterling news conference: What you don't have the ability to do, and you need to step up and say this, is stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence. Someone's going to get hurt. Someone's going to get shot. Someone's going to get killed.
Scott Pelley: Now that we saw the mob attack the Capitol, is that what you meant?

Gabriel Sterling: Yes. That's exactly what I meant. And continuing the disinformation and spinning up people's anger while they're emotionally raw, this is exactly what you're going to see.

Even Raffensperger was threatened by the president who said the Georgia secretary of state was culpable in the fantasy fraud.

President Trump on White House call: ...It's more illegal for you than it is for them. Because you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you know you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer, and that's a big risk.

Brad Raffensperger: Well, I think it was obviously a veiled threat, maybe a direct threat. But there was no substance to what he was saying.

President Trump on White House call: So tell me, Brad, what are we going to do? We won the election, and it's not fair to take it away from us like this. And it's going to be very costly in many ways.

Scott Pelley: When you heard those words, what did you think? "Very costly"?

Brad Raffensperger: I heard the threat. I don't know what that meant, exactly, but it wasn't gonna move me off center.

President Trump on White House call: But I mean, all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it's very dangerous for you to say that.

Scott Pelley: The president of the United States is saying, "Brad, this could be very dangerous for you."

Brad Raffensperger: Well, really what it did is I think it really revealed for us was his character. And it was just a sad moment to really hear that.

The president also suggested that someone tampered with Georgia's voting machines. But Gabriel Sterling, the secretary of state's chief operating officer, told us the state hand-counted all of the voting machine's paper ballot receipts.

Scott Pelley: The state of Georgia hand-counted how many ballots?

Gabriel Sterling: A little over 5 million.

Scott Pelley: And when you hand-counted the 5 million, how did that compare to what the electronic machines were saying?

Gabriel Sterling: They came back at 0.1053% off in the total number of ballots, and 0.0099% off the margin, which is incredibly close.

Scott Pelley: You would consider that to be virtually identical.

Gabriel Sterling: Yes.

Scott Pelley: I wonder how it feels, trying to push back against the president of the United States, who is making all of these claims.

Gabriel Sterling: It's like having a shovel in your hand and trying to empty the ocean.

Scott Pelley: When the president was making his speech on Wednesday, inciting that mob in Washington, he complained about weak and pathetic Republicans.
President Trump on Wednesday: No, it's amazing. The weak Republicans, they're pathetic Republicans...
Scott Pelley: He was talking about you.

Brad Raffensperger: Well, I think he was talking about others I think actually I showed that I had some courage, I had some gumption, that I actually would do my job. The ones that kowtow to him, that just bent over and did his bidding, and not looking into the facts, I think that's weakness.

Brad Raffensperger told us he didn't see the bloody attack on the Capitol when it was happening because at that moment, he was busy sending Congress a 10-page point-by-point rebuttal of the president's false claims. He learned later that the members of the House and Senate were under attack.

Brad Raffensperger: It was surreal. We've never seen anything like that in 150 years, maybe even longer, probably 200 years. It was really an affront to the people that founded this nation. People need to go back and read their history books. You know, we had some great founders. I know they weren't perfect men, but they were great people. They were some of the most learned people we had in our society. And that's the high ideal that we all should kinda elevate ourselves to, to be noble people of high character, and patriotic, and love our country.
Produced by Henry Schuster. Associate producer, Sarah Turcotte. Researcher, Jacqueline Kalil. Broadcast associate, Ian Flickinger. Edited by Michael Mongulla.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
2020 united states senate election in georgia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Georgia secretary of state describes call where Trump pressured him to find evidence of voter fraud

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why did the president help incite the riot that killed five people at the Capitol? It may be because, four days earlier, he failed to get the state of Georgia to take away Joe Biden's victory. A week ago, Saturday, Georgia's top election official, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger spent an hour on the phone listening to the president lie and threaten.

# data[].attributes.headline
Three House Democrats to introduce article of impeachment against Trump

# data[].attributes.subject
Three House Democrats to introduce article of impeachment against Trump

# data[].attributes.body
CBS News, January 9, 2021

This is an example of checks and balances because it talks about Trump "willfully inciting violence against the Government of the United States" and the purpose of checks and balances is to balance the power between the three government branches.

I believe it is a good thing to balance the power between three branches of government because it makes sure that one branch doesn't have all control, which could make things difficult and cause a lot of problems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
House Democrats introduced an article of impeachment against President Trump on Monday for incitement of insurrection after last week's riots at the U.S. Capitol.

The article of impeachment accuses the president of "willfully inciting violence against the Government of the United States." While Congress was gathering to count the Electoral College votes, the article says that Mr. Trump, addressing supporters nearby, "willfully made statements that encouraged - and foreseeably resulted in - imminent lawless action at the Capitol."

"Incited by President Trump, a mob unlawfully breached the Capitol, injured law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress and the Vice President, interfered with the Joint Session's solemn constitutional duty to certify the election results, and engaged in violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts," the article says.

As a result, he "gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coordinate branch of government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."

For this, the article says, Mr. Trump should be impeached, removed and disqualified from holding public office again.

The House will vote on Tuesday on a resolution calling on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment, which allows the vice president and the majority of the president's Cabinet to remove a president if he is deemed unfit for office. If Pence does not respond within 24 hours of the House passing this resolution, it will proceed with taking up the article of impeachment.

This development comes the week after a mob of Trump supporters overran the Capitol on Wednesday in riots that resulted in the deaths of five people, including a Capitol policeman who was trying to help reestablish control at the Capitol complex.

The bill has over 210 cosponsors, a sign of the broad support among House Democrats to take action in the wake of the violence at the Capitol. It was authored by Democratic Representatives Ted Lieu of California, and David Cicilline of Rhode Island, who began drafting it while sheltering in place Wednesday in the Capitol complex. Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin also helped write the article.

The White House called the impeachment article "politically motivated" and repeated Mr. Trump's assertions in a video Thursday that he was calling for "healing and unity."

A House impeachment resolution would move to the floor and could get a vote quickly, because there would be no hearings to present evidence. The Judiciary Committee has not yet been constituted for the 117th Congress, so an impeachment resolution would go directly to the floor under what's known as a "privileged resolution." A simple majority of members in the House is required for impeachment, so it seems likely to pass.

However, this is where the proceedings could be an impediment to Mr. Biden: the impeachment article would then move to the Senate for consideration, monopolizing the calendar just ahead of Mr. Biden's inauguration. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell noted last week that the earliest the Senate could consider any articles of impeachment would be January 19, the day before inauguration.

Once the Senate receives articles of impeachment, it is required to consider them before acting on any other business - including confirming any nominees for the incoming president's Cabinet. Congressman Jim Clyburn has suggested that the House may choose to hold on to the article of impeachment during Mr. Biden's first 100 days so that his presidency is not derailed.

Two-thirds of the Senate - 67 senators - would be required to convict Mr. Trump. He is on track to be the first president in U.S. history to undergo impeachment proceedings twice.

The House impeached Mr. Trump in December 2018 on charges of obstruction of Congress and abuse of power, although he was acquitted by the Senate in early February 2019. Only one Republican senator, Mitt Romney, voted to remove Mr. Trump from office.

Here is the article that has been introduced:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
House Democrats introduce article of impeachment against Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
House Democrats introduced an article of impeachment against President Trump on Monday for incitement of insurrection after last week's riots at the U.S. Capitol. The article of impeachment accuses the president of "willfully inciting violence against the Government of the United States."

# data[].attributes.headline
House to Move to Impeach Trump After Push to Have Pence Remove Him From Office- Wall Street Journal, January 11, 2021

# data[].attributes.subject
House to Move to Impeach Trump After Push to Have Pence Remove Him From Office- Wall Street Journal, January 11, 2021

# data[].attributes.body
This is an example of checks and balances because Trump over stepped his power and the house is gonna give him a consequence.
My opinion is that he does deserve to get impeached because he drove them to the capital and caused inspiration and it led to a riot, overall the president is problematic and I think the house is doing the right thing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif) said the House will move to impeach President Trump as soon as this week if Vice President Mike Pence and the president's cabinet don't act to strip him of his powers over the riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Mrs. Pelosi, in a letter to House colleagues, said Democrats on Monday will first introduce a resolution calling for the vice president to use the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to remove Mr. Trump from office. The resolution would come to a vote by Tuesday. If it is approved and Mr. Pence doesn't act to remove Mr. Trump from office within 24 hours, the House will proceed to impeachment, Mrs. Pelosi said.

"We will act with urgency, because this president represents an imminent threat," Mrs. Pelosi said.

Mr. Pence isn't expected to move forward with a 25th Amendment process, people familiar with his thinking said.

One article of impeachment that accuses Mr. Trump of inciting an insurrection was close to having enough support to pass the House. Meanwhile, more GOP lawmakers said Sunday Mr. Trump should resign.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
House to Move to Impeach Trump After Push to Have Pence Remove Him From Office

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif) said the House will move to impeach President Trump as soon as this week if Vice President Mike Pence and the president's cabinet don't act to strip him of his powers over the riot at the U.S. Capitol. Mrs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Courts Reject Last-Minute Claim That Pence Can Ignore States' Presidential Electors- npr, January 1, 2021

# data[].attributes.subject
Courts Reject Last-Minute Claim That Pence Can Ignore States' Presidential Electors- npr, January 1, 2021

# data[].attributes.body
This is an example of the judicial branch because they are using the power to make sure that Pence wasn't messing with the votes which is bad.
My opinion is that I'm glad that they stepped in to make sure that no voter fraud was happening.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A federal judge threw out a lawsuit that challenges President-elect Joe Biden's victory Friday, as Congress moves toward finalizing the results of the 2020 election.

And on Saturday, a panel of judges at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case for "essentially" the same reasons as the lower court: the plaintiffs don't have standing to sue.

The January certification of states' electoral votes, overseen by the vice president, is usually considered a formality. But a lawsuit filed last week by Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, sought to upend the process.

In some key battleground states, groups of Republicans have baselessly declared themselves to be "alternate electors," claiming to represent the true wishes of the voters. Gohmert and the other plaintiffs - including a group of self-proclaimed electors from Arizona - argued that when confronted with competing slates of electors, the Constitution gives Vice President Pence, as the Senate's presiding officer, the power to choose which electors to certify.

The legal challenge, which reflected the longstanding refusal of certain Republicans to acknowledge Biden's victory, was widely seen as a long shot. But on Friday, Judge Jeremy Kernodle in Texas ruled that the plaintiffs don't have standing to sue. He said they haven't met the requirement that they show they've been injured by the defendant, and that the relief they ask for would redress that injury.

In their suit, which named the vice president as the defendant, the Republican plaintiffs argued that a 19th century law spelling out how Congress should handle the count is unconstitutional, because it directs Pence to tally the electoral votes as they've been reported by the states.

These Republicans argued that the 12th Amendment gives Pence, not the states, sole discretion to determine which among competing slates of electors may be counted.

Gohmert "alleges at most an institutional injury to the House of Representatives," the district judge wrote in dismissing the case. The other plaintiffs - the wannabe Arizona electors - "allege an injury that is not fairly traceable to" Pence, he said.

In a court filing, Pence himself had told the judge that he was the wrong person to sue. The Republicans' beef wasn't with the vice president, he said, but with Congress.

"Plaintiffs object to the Senate and the House of Representatives asserting a role for themselves in determining which electoral votes may be counted - a role that these plaintiffs assert is constitutionally vested in the Vice President," Pence's attorneys wrote Thursday. "Indeed, as a matter of logic, it is those bodies against whom plaintiffs' requested relief must run."

House lawyers also asked for the suit to be dismissed, calling it a "radical departure from our constitutional procedures" and saying the proposed remedy would "authorize the Vice President to ignore the will of the Nation's voters."

Gohmert's crew pushed back Friday, criticizing the vice president for hiding behind procedural arguments, instead of dealing with the meat of the issue. Pence can conduct the Jan. 6 proceeding as he pleases, they argue, ignoring electors if he sees fit; he's not simply a "glorified envelope-opener in chief," they wrote.

Election law experts rejected this position. "The Gohmert reply is breathtaking & preposterous," Ned Foley, director of the election law program at the Ohio State University, said on Twitter. "The Constitution never intended this monarchical power to disenfranchise Electoral College votes based on personal whim."

Gohmert wrote that because of "convincing evidence of voter fraud," he and 140 Republicans in the House plan to object to the counting of electors that states certified for Biden. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has also said he will object.

But the objections are virtually guaranteed to fail, since they require a majority in both chambers.

Every court to examine the issue has found there was no compelling evidence of fraud in the presidential election.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Courts Reject Last-Minute Claim That Pence Can Ignore States' Presidential Electors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal judge threw out a lawsuit that challenges President-elect Joe Biden's victory Friday, as Congress moves toward finalizing the results of the 2020 election. And on Saturday, a panel of judges at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case for "essentially" the same reasons as the lower court: the plaintiffs don't have standing to sue.

# data[].attributes.headline
January Forces Some Schools to Extend Remote Learning, Others to Reopen Classrooms- Wall Street Journal, Jan.11, 2021

# data[].attributes.subject
January Forces Some Schools to Extend Remote Learning, Others to Reopen Classrooms- Wall Street Journal, Jan.11, 2021

# data[].attributes.body
This is an example of federalism because the school districts are making the decision whether or not to extend the virtual learning or to go traditional.
My opinion is that if the Covid-19 cases are high than to keep them virtual, but if the Covid-19 cases are really low in the area, then they can open up the schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
School districts across the country are changing their plans with the new year, with some deciding to prolong remote instruction and others moving to reopen classrooms.

Tenuous schedules are expected to remain fluid as districts weigh rising coronavirus cases in much of the country against concerns about student learning loss and when teachers can be vaccinated.

Detroit Public Schools Community District said last week that K-12 in-person instruction likely won't resume until February as coronavirus testing positivity rates remain too high. And Chicago, which has had remote learning since last spring, is pushing ahead with prior plans to reopen schools this month for some students despite pushback from teachers.

Many states have prioritized vaccinating teachers to expedite a return to in-person learning.

"It's a mixed picture all across the country," said Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, a group representing about 75 of the country's largest urban-school districts. "People set dates as a target to help with their planning purposes."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
January Forces Some Schools to Extend Remote Learning, Others to Reopen Classrooms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
School districts across the country are changing their plans with the new year, with some deciding to prolong remote instruction and others moving to reopen classrooms. Tenuous schedules are expected to remain fluid as districts weigh rising coronavirus cases in much of the country against concerns about student learning loss and when teachers can be vaccinated.