By The Washington Post · Mike DeBonis, Josh Dawsey
WASHINGTON – The push for an unprecedented second impeachment of President Donald Trump took a bipartisan turn Tuesday, when several senior House Republicans joined the Democratic effort to remove him for his role in inciting a mob to storm the Capitol last week. The White House braced for more defections.
Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the third-ranking House Republican, and Rep. John Katko of New York, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, said Trump was responsible for Wednesday’s violence. They were joined by Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., a frequent Trump critic.
“The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack,” Cheney said in a statement, adding, “There has never been a greater betrayal by a president of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.”
Katko’s language was similarly strong. “To allow the president of the United States to incite this attack without consequences is a direct threat to the future of our democracy,” he said.
Kinzinger added, “If these actions . . . are not worthy of impeachment, then what is an impeachable offense?”
A senior administration official said the White House expects at least a dozen Republicans to support impeachment in the House vote planned for Wednesday. The White House is rudderless, unwilling or unable to mount any defense other than saying that Trump will already be leaving next week, two administration officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal dynamics.
Trump, barred from Twitter, for the first time lacks the ability to aim angry tweets at those who oppose him, and White House officials conceded that he has few ways to stem the tide. He has asked Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to urge fellow Republicans to oppose impeachment, an official said.
The Republican statements supporting impeachment – which came after Trump delivered remarks earlier Tuesday expressing no regret for his actions – represented a watershed moment. They signaled high-level GOP concern about the role of Trump and other party leaders in spreading conspiracy theories about the recent election, and reflected how much the political landscape has shifted since Trump was acquitted in his impeachment trial in February.
In another potential sign of a changing atmosphere, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, scheduled a confirmation hearing for Treasury Secretary-designate Janet Yellen after weeks of delays in setting hearings for Biden’s Cabinet picks.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has been telling associates since the attack that Trump probably committed impeachable offenses, The New York Times first reported. McConnell, a close adviser said, has not decided how he will vote on impeachment and wants to hear the case first.
McConnell has not returned Trump’s calls in weeks and remains livid with him, and he will not pressure his colleagues to oppose or support convicting the president. “He’s not going to whip the vote,” said the adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
McConnell’s office declined to comment.
Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has floated a censure of Trump to his caucus members as a potential alternative to impeachment, but most Democrats – including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Calif. – have dismissed that penalty as insufficient because it comes with no consequences.
The White House Counsel’s Office has not drawn up a plan for combating the impeachment effort, an administration official said, and its legislative affairs team is not reaching out to lawmakers, unlike during Trump’s first impeachment.
The endorsement of impeachment by top Republicans complicates the prevailing GOP message of recent days – that it is a needlessly divisive and partisan move.
House members prepared for a preliminary step toward impeachment Tuesday evening, taking up a resolution urging Vice President Mike Pence and the Cabinet to use their powers under the 25th Amendment to remove Trump immediately. Pence has given no signal that he intends to do so, however, and Pelosi has indicated that she will then move immediately to impeach Trump.
Democratic aides said they expected the full House to vote on impeachment no later than Wednesday night – one week after the Capitol invasion and one week before Trump is scheduled to leave office.
It is unclear how many more House Republicans would support impeachment. None joined the Democrats in December 2019 when they impeached Trump for urging Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son, but the Capitol attack has shaken up the political dynamic.
The formal debate over sanctioning Trump began Tuesday morning when the House Rules Committee readied the 25th Amendment resolution for the House floor. The mood of the debate went from somber to angry as lawmakers sparred about Trump’s culpability – and one another’s – for Wednesday’s events.
“Rushing this resolution to the floor will do nothing to unify or heal the country,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. “These actions, again, will only continue to divide the nation.”
In response, Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, D-Mass., accused Jordan and others of having “given oxygen to the president’s conspiracy theories” and said appeals to civility were coming too late.
“We all want healing, but in order to get to healing, we need truth and we need accountability,” McGovern said.
Trump on Tuesday denied responsibility for last week’s riot, telling reporters that “what I said was totally appropriate” when he addressed supporters before the assault.
At a rally that day, Trump urged his followers to head for the Capitol and “fight much harder” to prevent Biden’s victory from being certified in Congress. “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” he said.
On Tuesday, Trump called impeachment “ridiculous” and “a continuation of the greatest witch hunt in the history of politics.” He suggested that proceeding with it might spark additional violence: “I think it’s causing tremendous danger to our country, and it’s causing tremendous anger. I want no violence.”
If the House impeaches Trump on Wednesday and transmits the charge to the Senate, as seems almost certain, Senate Democrats would immediately have to figure out how to hold an impeachment trial without bogging down Biden’s agenda.
With Trump accused of “incitement of insurrection,” Republican leaders are bracing for more defections. GOP lawmakers are openly considering whether to support impeachment, and Cheney gave them space to consider their options on a Monday conference call with colleagues.
She said that in light of Wednesday’s violence, impeachment was a “vote of conscience” for lawmakers rather than a matter of party discipline.
Other GOP leaders, including McCarthy and Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., have urged lawmakers to oppose impeachment, calling it needlessly divisive. And Trump’s defenders in Congress signaled that they would not stand idly by.
Jordan, who promulgated conspiracy theories about election fraud and attended a “stop the steal” rally after the election, accused Democrats of a “double standard” because they had raised objections to the electoral votes of previous Republican presidents, including Trump and George W. Bush.
Democrats noted that in those cases, the losing candidate had long since conceded and many lawmakers who protested made clear that they accepted the election results, while at no point encouraging violence.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., cited liberals’ reaction to Trump’s election, including the massive Women’s March on Washington.
“What did the Democrats do? They put on pink winter hats, marched peacefully with a million people, joined Planned Parenthood, worked with their churches to try to reform America,” Raskin said. “Nobody was out there agitating for a violent armed insurrection against the government.”
Another Democrat, Rep. Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, pleaded with Jordan to acknowledge that the election was not stolen and that Biden had won.
“Yes, he’s going to be president,” Jordan said, but added, “There are serious problems with this election that deserve an investigation.”
The sparring came as Democrats debated how to structure their steps after impeachment passes the House. The Senate is not scheduled to return to regular business until Jan. 19, a day before Biden’s inauguration, meaning there would be virtually no chance of conducting a Senate trial and ousting Trump from office prematurely.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called on McConnell to join him in invoking a provision that allows the Senate to convene early in cases of emergency, if both chamber leaders call for it.
“This is a time of emergency,” Schumer said. “We could come back ASAP and vote to convict Donald Trump and get him out of office now, before any further damage is done.”
Asked whether the House could delay transmission of the impeachment resolution, allowing the Senate to confirm at least some of Biden’s Cabinet nominees before plunging into an impeachment trial, Pelosi declined to comment Tuesday.
“Take it one step at a time,” she said.
Schumer also criticized Trump’s comments disclaiming responsibility for the mob violence. The senator called it “a pathological technique used by the worst of dictators.”
“Trump causes the anger, he causes the divisiveness, he foments the violence and blames others for it,” he said. “That is despicable.”
Democrats have discussed the potential for “bifurcating” Senate business so the chamber could approve nominees in the morning and hold a trial in the afternoon. But there is no modern precedent for doing that, and it would require cooperation from Republicans that they may be unlikely to grant.
Biden’s allies are increasingly fretting that an extended Senate trial of an already departed president would significantly obstruct the early Biden agenda.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters Tuesday that “the trial cannot be allowed to distract from or delay the critical work of providing economic relief and economic opportunity for the American working people.”
“We have to confirm a Cabinet, and we have to get economic relief to them very, very quickly,” Trumka said.
Schumer said in a letter to colleagues Tuesday that “our work on behalf of the American people must not and will not be deterred,” promising to deliver “the bold change our country demands.”
FBI report warned of ‘war’ at Capitol, contradicting claims that there was no indication of looming violence
InternationalJan 13. 2021A mob riots at the Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021. MUST CREDIT: Washington Post photo by Matt McClain
By The Washington Post · Devlin Barrett, Matt Zapotosky
WASHINGTON – A day before rioters stormed Congress, an FBI office in Virginia issued an explicit internal warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and “war,” according to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post that contradicts a senior official’s declaration the bureau had no intelligence indicating anyone at last week’s pro-Trump protest planned to do harm.
A situational information report approved for release the day before the U.S. Capitol riot painted a dire portrait of dangerous plans, including individuals sharing a map of the complex’s tunnels, and possible rally points for would-be conspirators to meet up in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and South Carolina and head in groups to Washington.
“As of 5 January 2021, FBI Norfolk received information indicating calls for violence in response to ‘unlawful lockdowns’ to begin on 6 January 2021 in Washington. D.C.,” the document says. “An online thread discussed specific calls for violence to include stating ‘Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal.”
BLM is likely a reference to the Black Lives Matter movement for racial justice. Pantifa is a derogatory term for antifa, a far-left anti-fascist movement whose adherents sometimes engage in violent clashes with right-wing extremists.
Yet even with that information in hand, the report’s unidentified author expressed concern that the FBI might be encroaching on free speech rights.
The warning is the starkest evidence yet of the sizable intelligence failure that preceded the mayhem, which claimed the lives of five people, although one law enforcement official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid disciplinary action, said the failure was not one of intelligence but of acting on the intelligence.
At the FBI office in Norfolk, the report was written within 45 minutes of receiving the information, officials said, and shared with counterparts in Washington.
The head of the FBI’s Washington field office, Steven D’Antuono, told reportersFriday that the agency did not have intelligence suggesting the pro-Trump rally would be anything more than a lawful protest. During a news conference Tuesday, held after The Post’s initial publication of this report, he said that the alarming Jan. 5 intelligence document was shared “with all our law enforcement partners” through the joint terrorism task force, which includes the Capitol Police, the U.S. Park Police, Washington’s D.C. police, and an variety of other federal and local agencies.
He suggested there was not a great deal for law enforcement to do with the information because the FBI at that time did not know the identity of the people who made the comments. “That was a thread on a message board that was not attributable to an individual person,” D’Antuono said Tuesday.
D’Antuono did not say what, if anything, the FBI or other agencies did differently as a result of that information. Nor did he explain why he told reporters on Friday that there had been no such intelligence.
Recently departed Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said in an interview Tuesday that he never received nor was he made aware of the FBI’s field bulletin, insisting he and others would have taken the warning seriously had it been shared.
“I did not have that information, nor was that information taken into consideration in our security planning,” Sund said.
After the riot, agents and prosecutors feel a great sense of urgency to track down and arrest the most violent participants in the mob, in part because there is already significant online discussion of new potential clashes Sunday and again on Jan. 20 when Biden will be inaugurated.
Acting U.S. Attorney for D.C. Michael Sherwin said there would be a strike force of prosecutors looking to file charges of seditious conspiracy where the evidence merited it.
The Jan. 5 FBI report notes that the information represents the view of the FBI’s Norfolk office, is not to be shared outside law enforcement circles, that it is not “finally evaluated intelligence,” and that agencies that receive it “are requested not to take action based on this raw reporting without prior coordination with the FBI.”
Multiple law enforcement officials have said privately in recent days that the level of violence exhibited at the Capitol has led to difficult discussions within the FBI and other agencies about race, terrorism, and whether investigators failed to register the degree of danger because the overwhelming majority of the participants at the rally were White conservatives fiercely loyal to the President Donald Trump.
“Individuals/Organizations named in this [situational information report] have been identified as participating in activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” the document says. “Their inclusion here is not intended to associate the protected activity with criminality or a threat to national security, or to infer that such protected activity itself violates federal law.
“However,” it continues, “based on known intelligence and/or specific historical observations, it is possible the protected activity could invite a violent reaction towards the subject individual or others in retaliation or with the goal of stopping the protected activity from occurring in the first instance. In the event no violent reaction occurs, FBI policy and federal law dictates that no further record to be made of the protected activity.”
The document notes that one online comment advised, “if Antifa or BLM get violent, leave them dead in the street,” while another said they need “people on standby to provide supplies, including water and medical, to the front lines. The individual also discussed the need to evacuate noncombatants and wounded to medical care.”
On Jan. 6, a large, angry crowd of people who had attended a nearby rally marched to the Capitol, smashing windows and breaking down doors to get inside. One woman in the mob was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer; officials said three others in the crowd died from medical emergencies. Another Capitol police officer died after suffering injuries.
The FBI said in a statement that its “standard practice is to not comment on specific intelligence products,” but added that FBI field offices “routinely share information with their local law enforcement partners to assist in protecting the communities they serve.”
For weeks leading up to the event, FBI officials discounted any suggestion that the protest of pro-Trump supporters upset about the scheduled certification of Joe Biden’s election could be a security threat on a scale with racial justice protests last summer in the wake of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis police custody.
While the nation’s capital is one of the most heavily guarded cities on the planet, local and federal law enforcement agencies sought to take a low-key approach to last week’s event, publicly and privately expressing concerns that they did not want to repeat the ugly clashes between protesters and police last year.
Some law enforcement officials took the view that pro-Trump protesters are generally known for over-the-top rhetoric but not much violence, and therefore the event did not pose a particularly grave risk, according to people familiar with the security discussions leading up to Jan. 6.
Even so, there were warning signs, though none as stark as the one from the FBI’s Norfolk office.
FBI agents had in the weeks before the Trump rally visited suspected far-right extremists hoping to glean whether they had violent intentions, a person familiar with the matter said, though it was not immediately clear who was visited or if the FBI was specifically tracking anyone who would later be charged criminally. These visits were first reported Sunday by NBC News.
In addition, in the days leading up to the demonstration, some Capitol Hill staffers were told by supervisors to not come into work that day, if possible, because it seemed the danger level would be higher than a lot of prior protests, according to a person familiar with the warning. Capitol Police did not take the kind of extra precautions, such as frozen zones and hardened barriers, that are typically used in major events around the Capitol.
Federal agents are in a state of high-alert in the days leading up to the inauguration as authorities brace for possible violence not just in Washington, but around the country, officials said.
The FBI recently issued a different memo saying that “armed protests” were being planned “at all 50 state capitols” and in D.C. in the days leading up to the inauguration, according to an official familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive law enforcement matter.
The memo – first reported on by ABC News and later confirmed by The Post – is a raw intelligence product, compiling information gathered by the bureau and several other government agencies, an official said. Some of it is unverified, and the threat is likely to differ significantly from place to place, the official said.
But the data it highlights to law enforcement are nonetheless troubling – including that there was information suggesting people might storm government offices, or stage an uprising were Trump to be removed from office, the official said.
In a statement, the FBI declined to comment specifically on the memo about state capitols but said: “Our efforts are focused on identifying, investigating, and disrupting individuals that are inciting violence and engaging in criminal activity. As we do in the normal course of business, we are gathering information to identify any potential threats and are sharing that information with our partners.
“The FBI respects the rights of individuals to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights,” it continues. “Our focus is not on peaceful protesters, but on those threatening their safety and the safety of other citizens with violence and destruction of property.”
By The Washington Post · Lena H. Sun, Laurie McGinley, Isaac Stanley-Becker, Amy Goldstein
WASHINGTON – The Trump administration announced sweeping changes to its vaccination rollout on Tuesday, including making all of the coronavirus vaccine supply immediately available, urging states to provide shots to anyone 65 and older and warning that states with lagging inoculations will lose some of their shots to speedier places.
The steps, part of an effort to accelerate a delayed and disjointed rollout, depart from the administration’s original strategy, and come just days after President-elect Joe Biden announced plans to release nearly all the vaccine supply. Biden is expected to provide a detailed blueprint on reinvigorating the rollout later this week, including likely calling for inoculations of everyone 65 and older and expanding the number of venues where shots are administered, according to two people familiar with the deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss them.
But it is not clear how, or even if, the outgoing administration’s plan to change state allotments of vaccines will play out. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told reporters in a briefing that in two weeks, the government would begin “redirecting” shots to states based on the size of their 65-and-older population and the pace of their vaccinations. States doing a poor job of getting shots into arms could see their allotments shifted to those performing better, he said, noting that about 10 states might be affected.The current allocation system is based on a state’s population.
Federal officials have complained the data on state immunization efforts is incomplete and that states vary significantly in how many of the shots given to people are reported within the required three days.
“This new system gives states a strong incentive to ensure that all vaccinations are being promptly reported, which they’re currently not,” Azar said. “And it gives states a strong incentive to ensure that doses are going to work protecting people rather than sitting on shelves or in freezers.”
But Azar, a Trump cabinet secretary, will be gone in a little over a week, and it is unclear whether the Biden camp endorses the idea. The president-elect’s transition team declined to comment on it. Other federal health officials expressed concern the changes would cause confusion, and questioned how they could be enforced, said one health official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share internal discussions.
State health officials, meanwhile, denounced the plan as punitive.
“It is too early to begin to judge how well states are administering this, and a punitive approach isn’t going to help us reach our goal of vaccinating the entire population as safely and quickly as possible,” said Michael Fraser, who heads the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.
Since the mass vaccination effort began last month,the Trump administration has held back roughly half the vaccines to ensure sufficient supply for people to get a required second shot.Under the new policy, the expectation is that people will still get their second doses about a month later, as planned. Azar and other Operation Warp Speed officials, who oversee vaccine distribution, said concerns about possible hiccups in manufacturing and distribution have been allayed by the steady ramp-up.
Over the next two weeks, Azar said, doses held in reserve will be shipped out based on states’ orders. Beyond that, he said, the available doses will be released first to cover second doses and then to provide additional first vaccinations.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, called the move to release all available doses a “welcome change.” “More details will be coming,” he said at a briefing Tuesday. “It is in fact very good news.”
Other supporters said that while releasing more vaccines could mean some people might face a small delay in getting a second shot, the risk of delayed inoculations is much greater as the pandemic claims thousands of lives daily and as a new, more contagious variant of the virus first identified in Britain spreads through the United States.
Critics, however, worry that an unforeseen and extended delay of the booster shot could undermine the efficacy of the vaccines.
Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines – the only two coronavirus vaccines that have been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration – were shown in clinical trials this year to be highly effective when administered in a two-shot regimen. The second Pfizer shot is given after 21 days, and the second Moderna shot after 28 days.
The administration’s call to states to broaden access to those 65 and older and those under 64 with high-risk medical conditions sharply increases the potential number of people seeking shots to about 184 million, intensifying demand on already stressed sign-up systems.
Under the original CDC recommendations, about 74 million people are in the first priority groups for vaccination: health-care workers; staff and residents of long-term care facilities; front-line essential workers; and adults 75 and older.
Neither Azar, nor other Warp Speed leaders, addressed how expanding the priority age groups would affect access to vaccine for front-line essential workers, from grocery store clerks to bus drivers, who had been in the next group prioritized for vaccination in many state plans. Azar noted that some states, such as Florida and Texas, already are vaccinating those 65 and older, and called it a faster way to protect many of the most vulnerable.
But Jason Schwartz, an assistant professor of health policy at the Yale School of Public Health, said on Twitter that the change could usher in “a free-for-all.”
“This seems like chaos,” he added. “Effectively telling 100 million+ people that they are eligible for vaccines now, while knowing that most will have to wait for several months actually get it” will cause rampant frustration.
Others noted that the priorityrecommendations from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee were a compromise between the desire to shield front-line essential workers who are disproportionately people of color and most likely to catch and transmit the virus because they cannot work from home, and to protect older people who are most prone to serious complications and death.
The change in the vaccination plans was discussed with governors in a meeting Tuesday afternoon chaired by Vice President Pence. Azar told the group the United States was on track to hit 1 million vaccinations a day within seven to 10 days, according to a Washington state readout.
The decisions to overhaul the vaccine distribution program were made this weekend in two meetings held by the leadership of Operation Warp Speed, as officials searched for ways to speed up a sluggish rollout, according to the senior administration official.
Some of the changes closely mirror options under consideration by Biden’s covid-19 response team, which is preparing the president-elect to lay out his own pandemic plan later this week. The Biden team was also looking at ways of broadening access for adults 65 and older, and getting states a clearer forecast of future vaccine supply, according to two people familiar with the deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the specifics.
Several state health officials and immunization managers complained Tuesday that they got no advance notice of the changes.
“I don’t think making allocations more complicated and unpredictable does anything to improve efficiency, or help states get vaccine to where it needs to go,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers, whose members direct immunization programs throughout the country.
Fraser, the head of the state health officials group, added, “The root problem is a supply issue. When will we have 184 million x 2 vaccines?”
But Azar blamed the slow rollout on states that have been overly rigid in adhering to the priority list, attempting to inoculate everyone in one group before moving to the next. “There was never a reason that states needed to complete vaccinating all health-care providers before opening vaccinations to older Americans and other vulnerable populations,” he said.
He likened it to boarding an airplane. “Imagine if you fined gate agents for boarding people out of order – you’d be standing at the gate for hours.”
Nearly 40 million doses are available to states now, Azar said. The latest figures show that more than 27 million doses of the two authorized vaccines have been distributed, with more than 9 million doses administered as of Tuesday at 9 a.m., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Last week, he had announced the federal government was accelerating a plan to distribute vaccines through retail pharmacies, which will handle scheduling appointments and reporting vaccinations. He said officials are also planning to use federally qualified health centers that serve low-income and minority populations.
An expansion of vaccination venues is part of Biden’s plan as well. The president-elect said last week that he wants to “establish thousands of federally run and federally supported community vaccination centers of various sizes across the country located in high school gyms or NFL football stadiums.”
Biden said the effort will include mobile clinics in rural areas remote from pharmacies, as well as a storefront vaccination programs in pharmacies and other commercial spaces. But he cautioned “that will cost money,” saying that the Trump administration and Congress have not yet devoted enough effort to the unprecedented mass vacation campaign.
President-elect Joe Biden walks into the Queen theater in Wilmington, Del,, on Jan. 10. (Tom Brenner/ Reuters)
By The Washington Post · Erica Werner, Jeff Stein
WASHINGTON – President-elect Joe Biden is finalizing his coronavirus relief plan, with aides briefing congressional staffers Tuesday and indicating the measure will be tailored to get bipartisan support.
The proposal, which Biden intends to unveil on Thursday, is expected to include $2,000 stimulus payments, an extension of enhanced unemployment insurance, money for vaccine distribution and delivery, funding for cities, states, schools, child care and more.
Transition officials indicated in meetings with Democratic staffers that Biden will try to get bipartisan support for the measure, instead of using a special budgetary tool that could allow him to push legislation through Congress with only Democratic votes, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations were private.
That’s led to speculation that the price tag of the package could be below $2 trillion – although Biden said last week that it could cost in the multiple trillions of dollars. Republicans are likely to balk at spending too much more after Congress has already devoted around $4 trillion to fighting the ravaging coronavirus pandemic and economic fallout.
Biden has said repeatedly that passing a coronavirus relief and economic stimulus package will be his No. 1 priority upon taking office Jan. 20. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., made the same point in a letter to colleagues on Tuesday, describing a relief bill as “our first order of legislative business” once the new Senate is organized and Kamala Harris sworn in as vice president, giving Democrats control of the Chamber.
“The job of covid emergency relief is far from complete. Democrats wanted to do much more in the last bill and promised to do more, if given the opportunity, to increase direct payments to a total of $2,000 – we will get that done,” Schumer wrote. “We will also further support vaccine distribution efforts and help American families, small businesses, schools and state and local governments.”
But even as Biden makes plans to advance his agenda, the House is preparing to impeach President Donald Trump a second time over his incitement of last week’s deadly invasion of the Capitol. It’s unclear when an impeachment trial would take place in the Senate, and how that will impact Biden’s goal of quickly enacting bipartisan legislation.
A spokesperson from Biden’s transition team declined to offer details of the proposed stimulus plan.
Biden said this week that he hoped the issues could be “bifurcated” so that the Senate could simultaneously approve his Cabinet nominees and work on coronavirus economic relief legislation while also moving forward with impeachment. It’s uncertain how well that would work in practice, if that is the path the Senate takes.
Outside interest groups are cautioning that impeachment should not be allowed to draw focus from the work of passing a new economic relief bill.
“The trial cannot be allowed to distract from or delay the critical work of providing economic relief and economic opportunity for the American working people,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said on a press call Tuesday. “We have to confirm a Cabinet and we have to get economic relief to them very very quickly. And I think the Senate and the House are both capable of doing those things simultaneously.”
Biden’s coronavirus relief plan would build on a $900 billion bill Congress negotiated and Trump signed in December. Democrats have repeatedly said that legislation left unfinished business as the virus continues its deadly march through the nation, vaccinations lag and the economy sheds jobs.
Biden ran on his prowess as a bipartisan dealmaker, but given the highly polarized political climate it’s unclear how much bipartisanship there will be in a Senate divided 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans. Some Democrats believe the events of last week at the Capitol may cause some Republicans to want to take a more bipartisan approach, in an effort to create more unity.
At the same time, some Democrats are warning against spending too much time trying to get a bipartisan outcome. President Barack Obama took office with both chambers of Congress controlled by Democrats, and spent months trying unsuccessfully to get GOP support for the Affordable Care Act, before ultimately passing it with only Democratic votes in the Senate.
“It would be good to have Republicans on board, but we should spend not an inordinate amount of time testing Republican willingness to come on board,” said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. “It would be excellent if we can get a big bipartisan vote, but if that’s Plan A we’re going to have to move to Plan B pretty quickly if we can’t get the votes.”
By Syndication Washington Post, Bloomberg · Arne Delfs, Raymond Colitt
Chancellor Angela Merkel warned that Germany faces hard lockdown measures into late March if authorities fail to contain a fast-spreading variant of the coronavirus.
During a video call on Tuesday, the German leader said that a strain that surfaced in Britain could lead to a rapid increase in the country’s contagion rates and prompt a 10-week extension of virus curbs, according to a person on the call who asked not to be identified.
Germany has struggled to control the spread of the disease despite weeks of stricter measures, including the closing of schools and non-essential stores and limiting contact between people. The news was first reported by the Bild newspaper. Merkel’s chancellery declined to comment when contacted by Bloomberg.
The numbers of infections and fatalities have roughly doubled since the end of November, rising to nearly 2 million and almost 42,000, respectively. The infection rate has been climbing in recent days and was at 165 cases per 100,000 people on Tuesday, more than triple the level the government has determined to be manageable without wide-ranging contact restrictions.
German officials are on alert over a strain of the virus that could be over 50% more transmissible. Since first being detected in southeast England in mid-December, British hospitals have been swamped with covid-19 patients as infections surge despite a faster pace of vaccinations than anywhere else in Europe.
The variant has spread to other countries, notably Ireland, which now has one of the world’s highest contagion rates.
Because Germany’s labs don’t regularly examine the structure of the virus, it’s unclear how widespread the variant may already be in the country. To counter this, Merkel’s government is looking to make funds available and require labs to share data with the country’s RKI public health institute.
Authorities will meet on Jan. 25 to discuss the next steps in the fight against the pandemic. Current measures are set to run until at least the end of the month, but are widely expected to be extended.
The opposition Green party called for restrictions beyond the current lockdown, including obliging people to work from home where feasible and requiring seat reservations on commuter trains.
Germany and its European Union partners began rolling out a vaccine at the end of December, but progress has been slow and officials have said it will take months for the shots to have a tangible impact.
Misinformation is undermining Germany’s campaign, including discouraging workers in old age and nursing homes from getting the shot, Bavarian state premier Markus Soeder said on Tuesday.
He said the government should consider making vaccinations obligatory for people coming into close contact with vulnerable individuals, adding that Germany already requires inoculations for the measles, which is far less dangerous than the coronavirus.
“It’s surprising,” he told ZDF television. “It has to do with this incredible fake news that spooks around on the web.”
WASHINGTON – Federal officials will require all international travelers flying to the United States to show proof they have tested negative for the coronavirus, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials announced Tuesday.
The order, set to go into effect Jan. 26, would greatly expand a requirement put into place last month that mandated testing for American citizens and others flying to the U.S. from the United Kingdom. Officials say they hope expanding the mandatory testing could help to thwart the virus and a faster-spreading variant that surfaced there and is now circulating in the United States.
“Testing does not eliminate all risk,” CDC director Robert Redfield said in a statement. “But when combined with a period of staying at home and everyday precautions like wearing masks and social distancing, it can make travel safer, healthier and more responsible by reducing spread on planes, in airports and at destinations.”
More than 100 countries require visitors to show proof of a negative coronavirus test. CDC officials said about 100,000 travelers come to the U.S. daily.
Airlines long have pushed for a testing requirement in hopes that it could replace quarantine measures that many nations have used to stop the spread of the virus.
In a letter sent to the White House last week, the trade group Airlines for America endorsed testing for international travelers instead of restrictions in place for those from Europe, the United Kingdom and Brazil. Nicholas Calio, A4A’s chief executive officer, wrote that a well-planned program could ensure the safety of the traveling public while also making room for “essential economic activities on which our country relies.”
“We believe a well-planned program focused on increasing testing of travelers to the United States will further these objectives in a much more effective way than the blanket travel restrictions currently in place,” wrote Nicholas Calio, A4A’s chief executive officer.
Calio asked that airlines be given 14 days to implement a testing program.
The order mirrors one issued Dec. 24 for travelers flying to the U.S. from the United Kingdom. Under those requirements, passengers are required to be tested within three days of their flight and must provide written documentation of the results. Both PRC and antigen tests will be acceptable.
However, the CDC does not support using testing as a substitute for quarantines, which some states and countries have put into place to slow the spread of the virus. The agency’s updated guidance recommends testing in combination with quarantining, frequent hand washing, mask wearing and physical distancing.
It did not appear there were plans to drop travel restrictions the U.S. imposed in March on many foreign nationals who had been in the United Kingdom, several countries in Europe and Brazil in the previous 14 days. Most travelers from those nations are not permitted to enter the U.S.
Many airports around the world offer on-site testing with results in as little as 30 minutes. Airlines, too, have set up programs that allow customers to be tested for the virus before they board flights.
The aviation industry has pushed for countries to embrace testing in place of quarantines, while surveys show travelers are more reluctant to travel to destinations that require them to quarantine. Even so, countries have not rushed to do away with quarantine requirements as new waves of infections have swept the globe.
In the U.S., some states, including Hawaii, Connecticut and New York, are allowing visitors to reduce the amount of time they must quarantine or skip quarantines altogether if they can provide proof of a negative coronavirus test.
In a call with reporters Tuesday, Alexandre de Juniac, director general of the International Air Transport Association, expressed frustration that nations have continued to implement quarantines.
“A more balanced public policy approach is needed – one that is based on testing as a replacement for quarantines so that we can begin addressing the severe side effects of covid-19 policies,” he said. “Science tells us that travelers will not be a significant factor in community transmission if testing is used effectively. But most governments have tunnel-vision on quarantine and are not at all focused on finding ways to safely reopen borders – or alleviate the self-imposed economic and mental health hardships of the lockdowns.”
Though is it not part of the order issued by the CDC, the agency also previously recommended that people be tested three to five days after the return home.
จีนยังเย้ยการเหตุจลาจลรัฐสภาสหรัฐ มองเป็นการสัญญาณเตือนการล่มสลายของประชาธิปไตย
โดนัลด์ ทรัมป์ยันปราศรัยอย่างเหมาะสม ไม่ต้องการความรุนแรง โวยเดโมแครตตั้งข้อหาปลุกระดมจลาจล “ไร้สาระ”
ปีนี้นับว่าเป็นปีที่หนาวเย็นที่สุดในรอบอย่างน้อย 20 ปี
บราซิลเผยผลการทดลองวัคซีนขั้นสุดท้ายพบว่าวัคซีน CoronaVac มีประสิทธิภาพอยู่ที่ 50.38%
A mob riots at the Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021. MUST CREDIT: Washington Post photo by Matt McClain
