The U.S. Senate confirmed U.S. Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Heath, as director of national intelligence Thursday, elevating him to a cabinet-level position in the Trump administration and creating a vacancy for a congressional seat in Texas.

The confirmation vote was 49-44 and brought a relatively smooth conclusion to a nomination process that started off rocky. President Donald Trump first tapped Ratcliffe for the position, which oversees the nation's 17 intelligence agencies, in July. But his path to becoming director of national intelligence initially hit a snag when the The Washington Post reported that a claim on Ratcliffe's website that he arrested "over 300 illegal immigrants on a single day" as a federal prosecuting attorney was an exaggeration. He also faced questions over whether he overstated his role as a federal prosecutor in a terrorism financing case.

Ratcliffe withdrew from consideration within a week as questions were raised about his credentials and whether he inflated parts of his biography. But Trump nominated him six months later, calling him an "outstanding man of great talent." Ratcliffe has been a vocal ally for Trump, defending the president during impeachment hearings in 2019. He was reportedly considered as a potential replacement for former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

His nomination has received strong support among Republicans. At Ratcliffe's confirmation hearing, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called the nominee a man of character who understood the difference between being a politician and being an appointed official. Retiring U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, R-Helotes, a former CIA undercover agent, also endorsed Ratcliffe, citing his professional experience, "capacity to selflessly lead," and understanding of "threats to our security and way of life."

All of the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee voted against advancing his nomination. But the minority party allowed the chamber to move quickly on a full vote on the nomination this week in order to get a Senate-confirmed nominee into the job in place of controversial acting Director Richard Grenell.

In his confirmation hearing, Ratcliffe expressed a need for the intelligence community to remain apolitical.

I will deliver the unvarnished truth," Ratcliffe said. "It wont be shaded for anyone. What anyone wants the intelligence to reflect wont impact the intelligence I deliver.

Meanwhile, the race to replace Ratcliffe has already begun in his northeast Texas district. Ratcliffe already won the Republican primary for the seat, meaning a group of activists that make up what is called the Congressional District Executive Committee will select his replacement on the November ballot. The committee will meet Aug. 8 to select a nominee.

Gov. Greg Abbott will not call a special election to finish Ratcliffe's term this year, according to an Abbott spokesman, John Wittman.

Ratcliffe's initial election to the seat in 2014 came as a surprise to many and was hailed as a sign of the power of the Tea Party movement. That year, he unseated the late Ralph Hall, R-Rockwall. Hall was a 91-year-old, 17-term congressman.

Abby Livingston and Patrick Svitek contributed reporting.

Read the original:
John Ratcliffe confirmed as director of national intelligence - The Texas Tribune

It remains unlikely, but hardly unthinkable, that President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence could simultaneously come down with serious cases of COVID-19 especially after two prominent White House aides recently tested positive for the coronavirus. We have already seen one head of government, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, incapacitated by COVID-19 and sent to an intensive care unit.

Both men are in high-risk groups: Trump is 73 and overweight; Pence is 60. (Johnson, in contrast, is a comparatively youthful 55.) If they were ordinary people, the protocol would be for the two men to place themselves in self-quarantine for two weeks, yet they have not done so.

When Johnson was hospitalized, he deputized his foreign minister to act as prime minister in his absence. Should only the president become ill, then the vice president can take over, following the protocol laid out in the 25th Amendment. But if the vice president becomes incapacitated as well, then we could face a constitutional crisis. It would be triggered by the inadequacies of the Presidential Succession Act passed in 1947 (when there was no vice president, because Harry Truman had succeeded Franklin D. Roosevelt).

Article II of the Constitution grants Congress the right to provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President and the 1947 act is the current result. Under its rules, the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate would be next in the line of succession, followed by the members of the Cabinet, beginning with the secretary of state.

Until 1947, succession had passed through the Cabinet. Congress added the speaker and president pro tem on the grounds that the president should desirably be an elected official, even if not part of the executive branch. This might make sense in theory, but it could be truly terrible in practice. Should both Pence and Trump be unable to serve, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D.-Calif., would become president under the act handing the White House to a different party without an election. Should she be unable or unwilling to serve, then the office would go to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

Any effort to transfer power from Trump and Pence to Pelosi would surely inspire legal and political challenges, adding to chaos at precisely the moment the nation desperately needed stability.

To be sure, COVID-19 in the White House could precipitate a crisis well before the Succession Act came into play. It is not difficult to imagine that Trump would deny and denounce as fake news any suggestion that he lacks the ability, in the words of Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution, to discharge the Powers and Duties of the presidency. The vice president and Cabinet can, in theory, overrule him and pronounce him unable to serve, invoking the 25th Amendment. But would they? Even if Pence and the Cabinet displayed independence, would Trump simply fire those who betrayed him? He couldnt fire the vice president, but the vice president cannot displace a president on his own; he needs the support of the majority of Cabinet officials and then Congress.

But even if the headstrong president bowed to reality, perhaps as he was about to go on a ventilator, the system would be stretched to the breaking point if Pence faced his own health crisis. If Pence, too, acknowledged his constitutional inability, then the Succession Act would apply and its flaws would become apparent.

The act, first of all, bespeaks a simplistic theory of democratic legitimacy that ignores the prominent role that political parties which have grown far more polarized since 1947 play in the American system. And it raises vexing legal and practical questions. Most lawyers believe that the speaker would have to resign from the House to serve as president, as a result of the Constitutions obscure incompatibility clause, which says that no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office. Perhaps, then, Pelosi would waive her right of succession (since, after all, her term would probably last only several weeks at most). So then the 86-year-old Grassley could take on the awesome role of president should he be willing to resign from the Senate.

There is also a serious argument, first laid out by Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar and his brother, Vikram Amar, now dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, in a 1995 essay in the Stanford Law Review, that the Succession Act is unconstitutional. Article II specifically says that Congress in setting rules of succession must select an officer as a replacement for the president and vice president. Members of Congress, the argument goes, are not officers, because they are elected officials and not presidential appointees. (Another legal argument holds that the incompatibility clause does not apply if a member of Congress were to serve as president or vice president, because officers refers to people appointed by the president, not to the chief executive position itself. Under that interpretation, Pelosi could retain her legislative office, if the act were upheld as constitutional.)

To put it mildly, it is hard to imagine these questions being litigated in real time should Republicans try to prevent Pelosi from taking office, or should she try to serve as president and speaker simultaneously. This month, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh evoked the possibility of chaos in a Supreme Court argument about unfaithful electors members of the electoral college who opt for candidates besides the ones they pledged to support. The problem of unfaithful electors is trivial compared with the true chaos possible under the Succession Act.

Constitutionality aside, the Succession Act makes little sense as policy: No one seriously believes that the worthies who serve as speaker of the House and president pro tem of the Senate do so because of a belief by the House or Senate that they have the skill set needed to serve as president. Indeed, Grassley occupies his office exclusively because he is the senior member of the majority.

Just as the United States turns out to have been woefully unprepared to confront the coronavirus, so are we unprepared to confront simultaneous presidential and vice-presidential disability. Returning to the pre-1947 rules, under which the secretary of state would follow the vice president in the line of succession, would make far more sense. The Constitution authorizes is it too much to suggest that it even places a duty on? Congress to address the possibility that the president and vice president could both become incapacitated. It should face up to its responsibility, before the grim scenario becomes reality.

Sanford V. Levinson is a professor of law and government at the University of Texas at Austin. He wrote this article for the Washington Post.

Read the original here:
OPINION EXCHANGE | If Trump and Pence both get very sick, it's unclear who would be president - Minneapolis Star Tribune

The Senate Intelligence Committee moved in a party-line vote Tuesday to advance the nomination of U.S. Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Heath, for director of national intelligence. The move sends the nomination to the full Senate, which is expected to confirm Ratcliffe in the coming weeks.

This is the second time President Donald Trump has tapped Ratcliffe for the cabinet-level position, which oversees 17 intelligence agencies. Last summer, Ratcliffe's nod was derailed quickly due to concerns about his political background and questions over whether he inflated parts of his biography. This time, Ratcliffe appears on track to be confirmed, with little ongoing discussion of the major issues highlighted in the last go around.

Acting appointees have filled the job since Dan Coats resigned last summer.

Ratcliffe has long been a vocal ally for Trump. He was a major defender of the president throughout the 2019 impeachment proceedings, in both private and public hearings. He berated former special counsel Robert Mueller, who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election, when Mueller appeared before the House in July. Ratcliffe argued that Mueller went beyond his bounds when he said the investigation didn't exonerate the president or determine the president's innocence.

Axios, when it broke the news that Ratcliffe had been selected, said Trump had been pleased by Ratcliffe's public, aggressive questioning of Mueller in the hearing.

Shortly after Trump named Ratcliffe as his choice last year, The Washington Post reported that a claim on Ratcliffe's website that he arrested "over 300 illegal immigrants on a single day" as a federal prosecuting attorney was a significant exaggeration.

The sweep happened at poultry processing plants in 2008, targeting workers suspected of using stolen Social Security numbers. Forty-five workers were charged, and six were dismissed. Two of the cases were dismissed because the defendants were American citizens. One former investigator called the investigation a costly failure. The claim is still on his website.

Ratcliffe, on his congressional website in 2015 and a campaign website in 2016, also stated that he had served as the federal prosecutor in U.S. v. Holy Land, an anti-terrorism financing case that played out over two trials.

A department news release showed Ratcliffe was operating in a supporting role, and people involved with the investigation had no recollection of his involvement with proceedings that led to convictions. A Ratcliffe spokesperson later acknowledged that Ratcliffe had been tasked not with prosecuting defendants, but with investigating the cause of an initial mistrial in the case.

Within a week of his nomination's announcement, Ratcliffe withdrew from consideration, citing a politicization of what would otherwise be a discussion about his professional experience and defending his record. But then in February, Trump formally nominated Ratcliffe to the position. In a tweet at the time, Trump called Ratcliffe "an outstanding man of great talent."

Ratcliffe's supporters have attempted to illustrate his ability to act as an apolitical administrator in response to continuing Democratic concerns. U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in Ratcliffe's confirmation hearing that the nominee was a man of character who understood the difference between being a politician and being an appointed official and who would lead competently and transparently.

Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft wrote in a letter that Ratcliffe would provide decision makers with "fulsome, transparent intelligence." Retiring U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, R-Helotes, a former CIA undercover agent, also endorsed Ratcliffe, citing his professional experience, "capacity to selflessly lead," and his understanding of "threats to our security and way of life."

In his confirmation hearing, Ratcliffe said his initial focus would be COVID-19's geopolitical and economic impacts. He also said he intends to focus on international security issues, like Iranian military capabilities, 5G cellular technology deployment, North Korean nuclear weapon development, and other cybersecurity and supply chain concerns.

He sought during the hearing to allay concerns of politicization of intelligence gathering. When asked about foreign interference in elections, Ratcliffe said Russia used "active measures" to interfere in the 2016 and 2018 elections and was actively working to do so in 2020. He said that Russia failed to change any votes or influence the election in 2016, and he committed to bringing information on foreign election interference to Congress.

"Keeping politics out of the intelligence community is one of my priorities," Ratcliffe said.

When pushed to express his views on issues related to the agencies he would administer, however, Ratcliffe often restated his intention to follow the law, saying that director of national intelligence is not a policymaking position.

Ratcliffe was first elected to the House in 2014, at the time replacing Ralph Hall, R-Rockwall, an elder statesman within the Texas delegation. He was reportedly considered as a replacement for then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions. In 2004, Ratcliffe was appointed as a federal prosecutor and chief of anti-terrorism and national security for the Eastern District of Texas. In the same year, he was elected mayor of Heath.

Ratcliffe's confirmation would open his northeast Texas seat in the House. His name is already set to be on the ballot this November, so a state Republican Party committee would vote Aug. 8 to select Ratcliffe's replacement in the race. Ratcliffe's seat is among the most Republican in the country, meaning the candidate the party selects would be the clear favorite in November.

Go here to see the original:
John Ratcliffe's nomination for director of national intelligence advances - The Texas Tribune

Who would be in charge of both President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were to become sick from the Covid-19 coronavirus?

Who would be in charge of both President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were to become sick from the Covid-19 coronavirus?

Who would be in charge of both President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were to become sick from the Covid-19 coronavirus?

Who would be in charge of both President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were to become sick from the Covid-19 coronavirus?

Opinion: If Trump and Pence both get very sick, it's unclear who would be president

It remains unlikely, but hardly unthinkable, that President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence could simultaneously come down with serious cases of covid-19 - especially after two prominent White House aides recently tested positive for the coronavirus. We have already seen one head of government, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, incapacitated by covid-19 and sent to an intensive care unit.

Both men are in high-risk groups: Trump is 73 and overweight; Pence is 60. (Johnson, in contrast, is a comparatively youthful 55.) If they were "ordinary" people, the protocol would be for the two men to place themselves in self-quarantine for two weeks, yet they have not done so.

When Johnson was hospitalized, he deputized his foreign minister to act as prime minister in his absence. Should only the president become ill, then the vice president can take over, following the protocol laid out in the 25th Amendment. But if the vice president becomes incapacitated as well, then we could face a constitutional crisis. It would be triggered by the inadequacies of the Presidential Succession Act passed in 1947 (when there was no vice president, because Harry Truman had succeeded Franklin D. Roosevelt).

Article II of the Constitution grants Congress the right to "provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President" - and the 1947 act is the current result. Under its rules, the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate would be next in the line of succession, followed by the members of the Cabinet, beginning with the secretary of state.

Until 1947, succession had passed through the Cabinet. Congress added the speaker and president pro tem on the grounds that the president should desirably be an elected official, even if not part of the executive branch. This might make sense in theory, but it could be truly terrible in practice. Should both Pence and Trump be unable to serve, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D.-Calif.,) would become president under the act - handing the White House to a different party without an election. Should she be unable or unwilling to serve, then the office would go to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

Any effort to transfer power from Trump and Pence to Pelosi would surely inspire legal and political challenges, adding to chaos at precisely the moment the nation desperately needed stability.

To be sure, covid-19 in the White House could precipitate a crisis well before the Succession Act came into play. It is not difficult to imagine that Trump would deny - and denounce as "fake news" - any suggestion that he lacks the ability, in the words of Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution, "to discharge the Powers and Duties" of the presidency. The vice president and Cabinet can, in theory, overrule him and pronounce him unable to serve, invoking the 25th Amendment. But would they? Even if Pence and the Cabinet displayed independence, would Trump simply fire those who "betrayed" him? He couldn't fire the vice president, but the vice president cannot displace a president on his own; he needs the support of the majority of Cabinet officials - and then Congress.

But even if the headstrong president bowed to reality, perhaps as he was about to go on a ventilator, the system would be stretched to the breaking point if Pence faced his own health crisis. If Pence, too, acknowledged his constitutional "inability," then the Succession Act would apply - and its flaws would become apparent.

The act, first of all, bespeaks a simplistic theory of democratic legitimacy that ignores the prominent role that political parties - which have grown far more polarized since 1947 - play in the American system. And it raises vexing legal and practical questions. Most lawyers believe that the speaker would have to resign from the House to serve as president, as a result of the Constitution's obscure incompatibility clause, which says that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." Perhaps, then, Pelosi would waive her right of succession (since, after all, her "term" would probably last only several weeks at most). So then the 86-year-old Grassley could take on the awesome role of president - should he be willing to resign from the Senate.

There is also a serious argument, first laid out by Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar and his brother, Vikram Amar, now dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, in a 1995 essay in the Stanford Law Review, that the Succession Act is unconstitutional. Article II specifically says that Congress - in setting rules of succession - must select an "officer" as a replacement for the president and vice president. Members of Congress, the argument goes, are not "officers," because they are elected officials and not presidential appointees. (Another legal argument holds that the incompatibility clause does not apply if a member of Congress were to serve as president or vice president, because "officers" refers to people appointed by the president, not to the chief executive position itself. Under that interpretation, Pelosi could retain her legislative office, if the act were upheld as constitutional.)

To put it mildly, it is hard to imagine these questions being litigated in real time should Republicans try to prevent Pelosi from taking office, or should she try to serve as president and speaker simultaneously. This month, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh evoked the possibility of "chaos" in a Supreme Court argument about "unfaithful electors" - members of the electoral college who opt for candidates besides the ones they pledged to support. The problem of unfaithful electors is trivial compared with the true chaos possible under the Succession Act.

Constitutionality aside, the Succession Act makes little sense as policy: No one seriously believes that the worthies who serve as speaker of the House and president pro tem of the Senate do so because of a belief by the House or Senate that they have the skill set needed to serve as president. Indeed, Grassley occupies his office exclusively because he is the senior member of the majority.

Just as the United States turns out to have been woefully unprepared to confront the coronavirus, so are we unprepared to confront simultaneous presidential and vice-presidential disability. Returning to the pre-1947 rules, under which the secretary of state would follow the vice president in the line of succession, would make far more sense. The Constitution authorizes - is it too much to suggest that it even places a duty on? - Congress to address the possibility that the president and vice president could both become incapacitated. It should face up to its responsibility, before the grim scenario becomes reality.

- - -

Levinson is a professor of law, and government, at the University of Texas at Austin.

Excerpt from:
Opinion: If Trump and Pence both get very sick, it's unclear who would be president - Greenwich Time

Market Study Report LLC has announced the launch of Kitchen Cabinet market report, a comprehensive study enumerating the latest price trends and pivotal drivers rendering a positive impact on the industry landscape. Further, the report is inclusive of the competitive terrain of this vertical in addition to the market share analysis and the contribution of the prominent contenders toward the overall industry.

The research report on Kitchen Cabinet market is a comprehensive analysis of this business space and entails all the key aspects of the industry including net revenue estimates, present renumeration, periodic deliverables, segmental share, market size, and market trends.

Request a sample Report of Kitchen Cabinet Market at:https://www.marketstudyreport.com/request-a-sample/2521515?utm_source=jewishlifenews.com&utm_medium=Pravin

A brief assessment of the behavior pattern of the Kitchen Cabinet market over the forecast timeline has been cited in the report. Critical parameters such as growth drivers as well the expected growth rate followed during the study period are also documented in the report. It further elaborates on the potential growth aspects and restraints of this industry.

Main highlights of Kitchen Cabinet market report:

Geographical scrutiny of the Kitchen Cabinet market:

Kitchen Cabinet Market Segmentation:

Key insights presented in the report with respect to the regional outlook:

A thorough analysis of Kitchen Cabinet market with respect to the product landscape and application spectrum:

Product landscape:

Product types:

Ask for Discount on Kitchen Cabinet Market Report at:https://www.marketstudyreport.com/check-for-discount/2521515?utm_source=jewishlifenews.com&utm_medium=Pravin

Main insights presented in the report:

Application landscape: IIII

Major discoveries of the report:

Other takeaways of Kitchen Cabinet market report:

Additional insight on the competitive outlook of the Kitchen Cabinet market:

Vendor base of the industry:

Vital parameters which define the competitive landscape of the Kitchen Cabinet market:

For More Details On this Report: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/reports/global-kitchen-cabinet-market-growth-2020-2025

Some of the Major Highlights of TOC covers:

Chapter 1: Methodology & Scope

Definition and forecast parameters

Methodology and forecast parameters

Data Sources

Chapter 2: Executive Summary

Business trends

Regional trends

Product trends

End-use trends

Chapter 3: Kitchen Cabinet Industry Insights

Industry segmentation

Industry landscape

Vendor matrix

Technological and innovation landscape

Chapter 4: Kitchen Cabinet Market, By Region

Chapter 5: Company Profile

Business Overview

Financial Data

Product Landscape

Strategic Outlook

SWOT Analysis

Read More Reports at:-

Read More Related Reports at: https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/Herbal-Supplements-Market-Analytical-Overview-Growth-Factors-Demand-Trends-and-Forecast-to-2026-2020-05-22

Contact Us:Corporate Sales,Market Study Report LLCPhone: 1-302-273-0910Toll Free: 1-866-764-2150 Email: [emailprotected]

See original here:
Kitchen Cabinet Market Size |Incredible Possibilities and Growth Analysis and Forecast To 2025 - Jewish Life News

On May 9, Brazils death toll from the coronavirus topped 10,000. Instead of marking the grim milestone with an address or a sign of respect for the victims, President Jair Bolsonaro took a spin on a jet ski. Video footage widely circulated on social media shows Brazils far-right leader grinning as he pulls up to a boat on Braslias Parano Lake where supporters are having a cookout. As he grips onto their boat, Bolsonaro jokes about the neurosis of Brazilians worried about the virus. Theres nothing to be done [about it], he shrugs. Its madness.

Even by the standards of other right-wing populists who have sought to downplay the COVID-19 pandemic, Bolsonaros defiance of reality was shocking. From the favelas of densely packed cities like Rio de Janeiro to the remote indigenous communities of the Amazon rain forest, Brazil has emerged as the new global epicenter of the pandemic, with the worlds highest rate of transmission and a health system now teetering on the brink of collapse.

Unlike the previous global hot spots Italy, Spain and the U.S. Brazil is an emerging economy, with a weaker social safety net that makes it harder for local authorities to persuade people to stay home, and an underfunded health care system. When a particularly severe outbreak struck the city of Manaus, in the Amazon, in late April, hospitals were quickly overrun, leading to a shortage of coffins. On May 17, the mayor of So Paulo, Latin Americas largest city, warned that hospitals there would collapse within two weeks if the infection rate continued to rise. The country has confirmed almost 18,000 deaths as of May 19, with a record 1,179 people dying in the preceding 24 hoursthe worlds second highest daily fatality rate. Epidemiologists say the peak is still weeks away.

For many Brazilian politicians and health experts, much of the blame for the heavy toll lies with the man on the jet ski. Defying social-distancing measures, Bolsonaro has held large rallies with supporters and waged what he calls a war against local governors who have tried to lock down their regions. Thanks in part to his example, many Braziliansbetween 45% and 60%, depending on the stateare refusing to comply with social-distancing measures, according to cell-phone tracking data. Adding to the chaos, Bolsonaro fired his Health Minister Luiz Mandetta in mid-April when he opposed his stance on social distancing. His replacement, a doctor with no political experience, resigned on May 15, after Bolsonaro pushed him to reopen the economy and promote unproven drugs to treat the virus.

The crisis comes as Bolsonaros administration is crumbling around him, just 16 months into his presidency. On April 24, Sergio Moro, his star Justice Minister, resigned, accusing the President of attempting to interfere with the federal police and sparking a political crisis. The departure of the most popular member of Bolsonaros Cabinet, widely seen as a moderating force, piles further pressure on the President: he now faces a criminal investigation into Moros claims that could lead to his impeachment. Bolsonaros personal approval rating has fallen 9 percentage points since January, according to a May 12 poll, to below 40%. Bolsonaros personality is extremely ill suited to a pandemic, says Gustavo Ribeiro, political scientist and founder of politics site The Brazilian Report. He cant unite the country, because his whole modus operandi is based on sowing division.

But Bolsonaro shows no sign of reversing courseand the crisis in Brazil is poised to deteriorate even further, leaving epidemiologists, humanitarians and regional leaders aghast. The President is co-responsible for many COVID deaths, says Arthur Virglio Neto, the mayor of Manaus, who watched his city overtaken by the virus in late April. With irresponsible, almost delinquent preaching, he encourages people to take to the streets. He has pushed many people to their deaths.

Brazils far-right President Bolsonaro addresses journalists from outside the Planalto Palace, the official presidential workplace, in Braslia on May 12 as cases of COVID-19 surge across the country

Jodson AlvesEPA-EFE/Shutterstock

Bolsonaro rose to power in 2018 by exploiting a period of intense anger at mainstream politicians and unprecedented polarization between the left and the right. A landmark corruption investigation, dubbed Car Wash, had exposed a breathtaking network of graft among Brazils political and business elites. Bolsonaro barreled into that situation as a political outsider, supposedly immune to the corrupt structures of large parties. An isolated figure in the capital, Braslia, he joined the right-wing Social Liberal Party to run for President, only to leave it after taking office. Upon assuming the presidency, he burnished his anticorruption credentials by appointing Moro, the popular lead Car Wash judge, as his Justice Minister.

The President presented himself as a maverick, willing to speak truths on issues that divide Brazil: praising the military dictatorship that led the country for two decades in the 20th century, promoting the use of force by police officers, railing against so-called gender ideology, and disdaining environmental protections for the Amazon rain forest and the rights of indigenous communities, which he says hold back Brazils agricultural sector.

In his willingness to say the unsayable and to take on the pillars of the establishment, Bolsonaro took his cues from the U.S. Presidentso much so that international media nicknamed him the Trump of the Tropics. Over his first 16 months in office, Bolsonaro determinedly fanned the flames of Brazils culture warssometimes literally. Deforestation in the Amazon rain forest last year surged 85% from 2018, as the President slashed regulations and enforcement meant to prevent land grabbers from setting fire to the forest to clear it for farming. When the international community pressured Brazils government to slow the destruction, Bolsonaro responded by telling Angela Merkel to reforest Germany.

But Bolsonaros sense of impunity may have sowed the seeds for his eventual downfall. In the early hours of April 24, Bolsonaro removed the chief of the federal police, Maurcio Valeixo, writing in his official decision that Valeixo had asked to step down. Hours later, Moro resigned as Justice Minister. He accused Bolsonaro of firing Valeixo in order to replace him with a lackey who would illegally feed him confidential information, and later said the President had also attempted to replace the regional head of the police in Rio de Janeiro state, where two of Bolsonaros sons are under investigation. Bolsonaro denies any wrongdoing and has referred to Moro as Judas.

Moro is more cautious in criticizing the President. Speaking to TIME from a gray hotel room in Braslia, the former judge chooses his words carefully. There is a difficulty in facing the pandemic in Brazil due to the Presidents negationist position. Thats obvious, he says, adding that he felt uncomfortable being part of a government led by a President who has trivialized the virus. But my focus is on the rule of law. He says the Presidents alleged interventions with the police were the last straw in a whole scenario that has unfolded over the last year that showed that this new government was not fulfilling its promises to fight corruption and strengthen institutions.

The overlapping controversies of Bolsonaros handling of COVID-19 and Moros dramatic departure have begun to sap the Presidents support. A survey published May 12 by pollster CNT/MDA found the Presidents personal approval rating fell to 39.2% from 47.8% in January, as disapproval rose to 55.4% from 47.0%. But Bolsonaros radical base, which includes evangelical Christians, the military and the agriculture sector, remains strong, says Rodrigo Soares, a professor of Brazilian public policy at Columbia University. The President is [doubling down] to appeal to his core supporters, who would be displeased if he took a technocratic approach and listened to public-health experts. Thats not how he got where he is.

The same might be said of Trump, who has at times taken an approach to the coronavirus as cavalier as Bolsonaros. Both men have sowed confusion over the seriousness of the disease. Both have promoted unproven drugs as treatments for COVID-19, despite warnings of their serious side effects. In March, Bolsonaro visited Trump in the White Housea trip that ousted Health Minister Luiz Mandetta later described to CNN as a corona trip because several members of Bolsonaros team tested positive for the virus afterward.

Yet while Trump leads the richest country in the world, Bolsonaro leads an emerging market with one of the worlds highest rates of inequality. Health care access is patchy for millions of people, and fewer in Brazil than in the U.S. have the conditions necessary to work from home. Miguel Nicolelis, one of the most respected scientists in Brazil, who is coordinating a committee for northeastern states to track the viruss spread, says the situation is still worsening. Despite the very serious problems in the U.S., the exponential curve of cases and deaths in Brazil suggests we are not even close to our peak yet.

Nurse technician Vanda Ortega Witoto, 32, takes care of a patient in Parque das Tribos, an indigenous community near Manaus, the capital of Brazils northern Amazonas state

Ricardo OliveiraAFP/Getty Images

In April, Vanda Ortega Witoto, a nurse technician, began monitoring the chief of her indigenous community. Messias Martins Moreira, 53, of the Kokama people, had a fever that wouldnt let up, which Ortega believed was COVID-19. There is no health center in Parque das Tribos, their remote community of 700 families on the banks of the Tarum-Au River in the Amazon. At first, Martins didnt want to go to a hospital in the nearby city of Manaus, saying he would rely on traditional medicine. [By the time] he realized there was no other way, he couldnt breathe, Ortega says. He died on May 14.

Brazils 800,000 indigenous people, many of whom live in remote parts of the vast Amazon rain forest, now find themselves particularly vulnerable to the pandemic. Joenia Wapichana, the countrys only indigenous member of Congress, has warned that the communities isolation and lack of health and sanitation infrastructure could turn the coronavirus into another genocide for indigenous people. The first occurred when the Portuguese arrived in Brazil in the 1500s, carrying diseases and staging violent takeovers of land that wiped out most of the more than 3 million indigenous people living there.

And all over Brazil, there are vulnerable communities. Roughly 11 million people live in Brazils favelas, shantytowns often on the outskirts of major cities. Cramped homes, limited water infrastructure and unsafe working conditions have left millions of favela residents struggling to stem the spread of the virus.

With case numbers yet to peak, health systems around the country are on the edge of collapse. In So Paulo, 90% of ICU beds are full. In the state of Pernambuco, where ICUs are 96% full, a shortage of ventilators has forced doctors to choose not to treat some cases, and some hospitals are treating patients in hallways. In Rio de Janeiro state, the waiting list for a hospital bed topped 1,000 in the second week of May; some emergency facilities opened a few weeks ago are already over 90% full.

The economic impact of the coronavirus is also likely to carry a heavy human toll. Even as lockdowns have been only partly implemented, the economy is projected to shrink 5% in 2020which would be the deepest recession since records began in 1900. Incomes have already fallen sharply among the majority of the population, who cannot work from home, and particularly among the roughly half the work-force who earn a few hundred dollars a month in the informal sector. Humanitarian groups say a hunger crisis is in the cards for the quarter of the population who live in poverty. The government announced an estimated $30 billion package to funnel emergency cash to those who cannot work.

The impact of this is especially unpredictable in Brazil, where almost every economic crisis since its return to democracy in 1985 has been followed by a sharp political shift. Ribeiro, the political scientist, says it is very, very possible that any such shift in the near future would be accompanied by social unrest. People are as radicalized as I have ever seen. And now were going to an economic crisis like Ive never seen in my lifetime, he says. I dont see a rosy future ahead of us.

Bolsonaro has a not-so-secret weapon that could help him ride out the storm. A former army captain, the President has forged a tight alliance with the military. Active and former military officials currently hold nine of the 22 Cabinet positions, and they appear to be closing ranks around Bolsonaro, which analysts say might shield him from impeachment.

The President may yet survive, but many of his people will not. Carlos Machado, coordinator of the observatory against COVID-19 at the countrys epidemiological institute, Fiocruz, sees the makings of an extremely dangerous situation for Brazilians in the current moment. When public-health emergencies overlap with extremely precarious political and economic crises, it can create a humanitarian crisis, he says. Brazil is heading there.

With reporting by Flvia Milhorance/Rio de Janeiro

This appears in the June 01, 2020 issue of TIME.

Thank you! For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder.

Write to Ciara Nugent at ciara.nugent@time.com.

Go here to read the rest:
Brazil Is Starting to Lose the Fight Against Coronavirusand Its President Is Looking the Other Way - TIME

The development of a vaccine to prevent people from being infected with the novel coronavirus is unlikely to be completed by the end of this year, the head of a Japanese government panel of experts on the virus said Wednesday.

While governments and companies around the world are working to develop vaccines to contain the pandemic, Takaji Wakita said it will be vital to ensure their efficacy and safety, as well as to ascertain whether they have side effects.

"I think (development) will go beyond the year end, and it is difficult to predict at this moment how soon a vaccine will become available," said Wakita, director of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, at a parliamentary session.

(Takaji Wakita, chair of a government panel on the new coronavirus and head of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, speaks during a House of Representatives budget committee session in Tokyo on May 20, 2020.)

"I'm not sure which party -- if it's Japan or other countries -- will reach the goal first," he said.

As of Wednesday, the virus had infected over 4.8 million people worldwide and claimed more than 320,000 lives, according to a tally by Johns Hopkins University.

As for the coronavirus epidemic in Japan, Shigeru Omi, chairman of a government advisory committee on COVID-19, warned that even if Tokyo and seven other prefectures lift a state of emergency over the coronavirus, people should think of the infection as still continuing even though it is not visible.

The government is considering lifting the emergency in Osaka, Kyoto and Hyogo, all in western Japan, among the eight prefectures later this week, and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will make a final decision on Thursday.

Omi said domestic infections appear to be subsiding, but warned, "It is highly possible that (infections) can flare up again (in Japan) before winter arrives."

(Supplied electron micrograph shows the new pneumonia-causing coronavirus.)[Photo courtesy of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases]

Related coverage:

8 coronavirus vaccine candidates in clinical trial: WHO

Sumitomo Chemical funding development of COVID-19 scent sensor

FOCUS: Japan's initial goal of V-shaped recovery not on horizon

Continued here:
Coronavirus vaccine unlikely to be developed this year: Japan expert - Kyodo News Plus

Well meet again, but we still dont know where, still less when. The figures are encouraging: fewer than 10,000 Covid-19 patients in hospital, deaths on a downward trajectory, infection rates falling fast. On Monday, there were no new cases in London and the East, with just 79 testing positive across England. Insofar as the gradual relaxation of the lockdown has not led to a new spike, the Governments cautious approach has been vindicated.

So far, so safe. But what next? Take schools, where the evidence is mixed. Schools are reopening across Europe, but here the teaching unions, with tacit support from local authorities, are resisting any return to the classroom. The Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson, has passed the buck to school heads. Instead of leadership we have seen order, counter-order and disorder.

Such a cavalier, even chaotic approach to the education of our children is just not good enough. If the original policy of continuing to teach the children of key workers had been carried out more rigorously, schools would be able to expand their provision from a substantial base. Instead of the expected 10 per cent of pupils, however, a mere 2 per cent have attended classes. Distance learning has been patchy, with the gap between the best and the worst unacceptably wide. About a third are being let down badly. By June 1 these pupils will have missed two months of their education. It will be a tough task to restore discipline and make up for lost lessons. No wonder union leaders and some teachers are reluctant to face up to this challenge.

Elsewhere, the debate about rebooting the economy has focused on social distancing. Industries such as leisure, tourism and hospitality are lobbying against the two-metre rule, which they say makes many businesses unviable. It is true that elsewhere in Europe, only Spain has imposed two metres, rather than the one metre rule recommended by the World Health Organisation. It is also apparent that many people are now treating the rules casually. Social distancing depends on compliance to be effective. If you tell people a metre, they will take liberties even with that. The two-metre rule should probably stay for now, but be reduced to one metre as soon as infection rates across the whole country have fallen to Londons level.

The pressure for a rapid return to normal is coming primarily from producers and providers, rather than consumers. Even when pubs, restaurants and hotels reopen, the evidence from elsewhere is that customers are taking their time to return. Many businesses may have to run at a loss for months until confidence is restored. Some new spending patterns may be here to stay. Open plan offices, crowded public transport and high street shopping are out of favour. Home working and entertainment, outdoor activity and online retail are booming. There is no point in the Government trying to force people to return to habits that its own policies have discouraged or banned. Yet neither is there any virtue in enforced idleness. We are going back to work many of us have never stopped but the watchword must be: steady as she goes.

Britain, in brief, must go with the flow and that includes politicians. Some MPs are resisting calls to return to Westminster, but the public expects to see its elected representatives in their workplace. Cue howls of protest: surely Parliament should set an example as a model employer? This is to misunderstand the nature of politics as a vocation. That vocation is unique even in the field of public service. Members of neither House are employees, even though they are paid for their work. They are called by the Sovereign and sent to Westminster by their constituents to parley with one another, to legislate and to lead the country. Their absence is unlikely to make the voters hearts fonder.

Virtual proceedings are all very well, but they are no substitute for the serious business of running the country. Even if just 50 of the 650 MPs can sit in the chamber at once, there should be eager competition to be among them. For the present, those over 70 or otherwise vulnerable may have to stay away a problem for the Lords in particular but they too should be brought back to Westminster at the earliest opportunity. Parliament is meant to be a physical microcosm of the nation, not a glorified Zoom meeting.

As we move into the next phase of the crisis, some ministers have been found wanting and the Prime Minister is reported to be thinking about a Cabinet reshuffle. He will surely wish to bring a few experienced colleagues from the Remain camp back into Government, notably his former rival Jeremy Hunt, who has been notably loyal, and perhaps even Amber Rudd. Rory Stewart, however, has ruled himself out by briefly standing as an independent in the London mayoral race. Amanda Milling, the party chairwoman, is likely to become a full Cabinet minister, as is Suella Braverman, the Attorney General. But the main focus should be on promoting new talent.

An outstanding example is Kemi Badenoch. Elected in Saffron Walden only in 2017, after a brief stint at the Department for Education she moved to the Treasury in February, where she serves as Exchequer Secretary . She has earned her meteoric rise and a Conservative Government needs a different face to deal with the crisis in schools and universities. Boris Johnson has rewarded Gavin Williamson for his loyalty, but the former Chief Whip has manifestly failed to inspire confidence either at Defence or Education. His replacement by Kemi Badenoch, a self-made woman of Nigerian heritage, would send a powerful message to parents, teachers and academics. There is no time to lose in ensuring that the Government not only speaks for the whole country, but can be seen to do so, too.

Go here to read the rest:
So far, so safe. Time to learn the lessons of the coronavirus crisis - TheArticle

President Donald Trump named a top Republican contributor as the new Postmaster General, returning the post to a political appointee for the first time in 48 years.

Post offices were once the ultimate patronage pits for political organizations, some of whom enjoyed the large amounts of cash transactions involved.

Until 1971, local postmasters were political appointees who often got their jobs as patronage for Members of Congress. Postmasters of large post offices were named by the President, with U.S. Senate confirmation; the Postmaster General appointed postmasters of smaller post officers after receiving recommendations from local congressmen or influential members of the presidents political parties, like county chairs.

Sometimes the job went to politically adept career postal workers who built relationships with local politicians. Over time, the job transitioned from pure political appointments to people who had post office experience.

There is no indication that Trump plans to return to the old system, but his appointment of North Carolina businessman Louis LaJoy, who has contributed more than $2 billion to GOP campaigns over the last four year, flips control of the post from career postal employees back to the political arena.

The Postmaster General post was a political appointment from the presidencies of George Washington to Richard Nixon. From 1829 to 1972, the Postmaster General was a member of the presidents cabinet.

Trump has been a harsh critic of the U.S. Postal Service, calling the agency a joke and refusing requests for a $75 billion bailout with out an increase in postal rates.

Local Postmasters

When the Ramsey postmaster job opened up in 1957, Rep. William Widnall (R-Saddle River) asked President Dwight Eisenhower to appoint John Roosa, a community leader active in local politics.

After Roosa retired ten years later, Widnall wanted to give the job to another Republican, Fred Warren. But with Democrat Lyndon Johnson in the White House, Democratic U.S. Senator Harrison Williams decided to make the appointment.

That same year, Rep. Henry Helstoski (D-East Rutherford) picked Robert Nieradka as the East Paterson (now Elmwood Park) postmaster after a vote of the local Democratic county committee.

Nieradka and another Democrat, John Mezian, both screened for postmaster. The county committee voted and Nieradka won. Democratic Municipal Chairman Sal Spinato then needed to get sign off from Bergen County Democratic Chairman Anthony Andorra before Helstoski made his recommendation to the White House.

Postmasters were frequently allowed to squat in most cases, rather than switch them out as consequences of national elections.

Republicans had pushed for the creation of a single Edison Post Office in the 1950s to replace what had been 11 separate post offices throughout the municipality. That allowed Edisons congressman, Peter H.B. Frelinghuysen (R-Harding), to name the new postmaster a move that upset Mayor Anthony Yelencsics, whose local Democratic organization still controlled the smaller post offices from the 20 years that Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman occupied the White House.

In New Jersey, local postmaster was a relatively easy and lucrative position.

Democrat William Fiedler, a former assemblyman and Newark mayor, was appointed Newark postmaster by President Grover Cleveland after losing re-election to his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Republican John Blair was one of the wealthiest men in the nation, but he also spent more than 25 years as the politically-appointed postmaster in Blairstown. He was also the unsuccessful Republican nominee for governor in 1868.

With the loss of postmasters and congressional pages, House members are now limited to a small staff and military academy appointments.

Postmaster Generals were party leaders

The Postmaster General post was a political appointment from the presidencies of George Washington to Richard Nixon. From 1829 to 1972, the postmaster general was a member of the presidents cabinet.

The legendary James Farley served simultaneously as postmaster general and Democratic National Chairman during Roosevelts first two terms. Trumans postmaster general was Robert Hannegan, one of the top party bosses in St. Louis. He was also DNC chairman while serving in the cabinet. Under Dwight Eisenhower, the postmaster general was Arthur Summerfield, the Republican National Chairman.

John F. Kennedy named Edward Day, a former Illinois state insurance commissioner and ally of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, as postmaster general. His replacement in 1963 was John Gronouski, a former Wisconsin commissioner of taxation who had unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1952.

In 1965, Johnson nominated Gronouski as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland and replaced him with Lawrence OBrien, one of the national Democratic Partys top political operatives. Marvin Watson, who was Johnsons White House Appointments Secretary and de facto Chief of Staff, was named Postmaster General in 1968.

Nixons postmaster general was Winton Blount, a GOP insider who left the post in 1972 to become the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Alabama.

View post:
Trump names GOP donor as postmaster general. Could that mean the return of local postmasters as congressional picks? - New Jersey Globe | New Jersey...

Ahmad Sajoh, a former Commissioner for Information and Strategy, Adamawa State outlines the qualities the most valued staff of Mr. President must embody

The death of Mallam Abba Kyari is a very big blow to His Excellency Mr. President, the government and indeed the country at large. He left a very big vacuum which will be hard to fill. While it is indeed wrong to speak ill of the dead, I find some of the testimonies bandied around by people who claim to have been too close to the late Chief of Staff as equally wrong. Where were all these people when the man was alive and so many unsavory things were said about him? Some of the testimonies do not even add up at all when juxtaposed with what transpired under the presidency when he was alive. Like I said earlier, we have all accepted this cultural norm that it is bad to talk ill of the dead. But It is equally wrong to say things not true about a man who passed away. In all honesty, we should have been more concerned with designing a template for the President to use in selecting a replacement rather than spending so much time and energy in portraying the late Chief of Staff as an irreplaceable super human.

For me, the most important thing we all should be doing is to help the President identify a suitable replacement that will serve the best interest of the President as the leader of the country and the citizens who have a service contract with the President. According to the President, one of the qualities that stood Mallam Abba Kyari apart was his close relationship with Mr. President for over four decades. This means that whoever will replace the late Chief of Staff must have been close to the President for a long time, long enough to understand the Presidents person and temperament as well as to appreciate him both as a leader with all the burdens of the office and as a human with personal needs. Such a replacement must understand national politics very well while still remaining completely apolitical without pandering to the political whims of the different political tendencies in the polity. This way, the different roles of the office of the President cannot be compromised on the altar of political expediency or to satisfy a particular individual or group political interests.

In addition, the replacement must appreciate working 24/7 all year round without let or rest within the Presidents demands. This must have been cultivated over the years dating to periods long before Muhammadu Buhari became the President. This is why such an appointee should be the choice of the President this time around not one supposedly imposed on the President as was speculated with the late Chief of Staff. And it is easy for the President to find such a person within his inner circular. Most importantly such a persons appointment should erase all the speculations about the office serving as the extension of a supposed cabal manipulating the governance process. This is necessary for confidence building.

My understanding of the functions of the Chief of Staff to the President Federal Republic is one that performs a gate keeping function for the President. This is not in the sense of one who blocks people and issues from getting to the President but one that sieves through the many schedules of the President and the many issues requiring his attention. For the President, this is a very crucial role. Only someone strategic and close enough who understands Mr. President, understands his temperament and thinking can be an effective gate keeper, determining what goes in and out of the Presidents presence and office. Every individual or document going into the Presidents office should be appropriately evaluated for content and in keeping with the mood of the President. This must be done in an honest and timely manner without conflict of interest especially one induced by external forces.

It must also be noted that the Chief of Staff is the coordinator of all the personal staff of Mr. President as well as all the Staff of the Presidential Villa. As the name implies, he is the Chief of all the staff directly serving Mr. President. Everyone serving the President or working within the Presidential Villa looks up to him for general direction and coordination.

Supporting the political process including configuring effective relationship between the President and the political class and political office holders is also another major function of the Chief of Staff. The President as the leader of the country must relate everyday with his political party, other strata of the political class including those in opposition parties, and political office holders. The Chief of Staff liaises with all of these levels of political activity in a manner that is neither partisan nor myopic. He must understand the needs of the political class, help to evaluate certain concepts and contents in order to guide the President on the correct political decisions to make that are appropriate to existing situations.

One of key functions of the Chief of Staff is effective liaison with other levels of the Presidents functions. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as well as the Officer Commanding all other security outfits in the country. It is the duty of the Chief of Staff to liaise with all of them and keep Mr. President abreast of happenings in the security sector and also avail him information on public perceptions and demands. This, the Chief of Staff must do without undermining the functions of all offices responsible for coordinating security strategies and activities. It is a function that must be used with caution and only someone who is apolitical and level headed can perform this function effectively.

The President is the head of his cabinet and must be able to guide, promote and protect the effective functioning of the cabinet as a constitutional requirement of the governance process. The Chief of Staff must provide support to the cabinet secretariat, ensuring that the President understand all memos and issues to be discussed to enable him guide the process effectively. In doing so the Chief of Staff must have sufficient institutional memories of the functioning of the cabinet from inception of the Buhari presidency. Such a person should have been with the President from the beginning of his Presidency.

The new Chief of Staff should possess a lot of Institutional memory with respect to Diplomatic relationships established overtime and what needs to be done at what level. Therefore the office requires a persons who had been close enough to have been with the President throughout his tenure. He or she must be a close ally and confidant of the President. The new Chief of Staff must be able to appreciate the President as a person, his temperament and family responsibilities. He must be absolutely loyal to the President and such loyalty must have been proven over time,must have the capacity to take as many verbal and written bullets as possible without buckling or even over reacting. A person who has the technical ability to analyze documents and provide advisories for Mr. President, must assemble a crack team and work as a team player with the temperament to moderate the various tendencies that will compete for the Presidents attention

In trying to be all of the above and much more, the Chief of Staff must avoid engulfing the office or the person occupying the office in unnecessary controversies. The whole Nation awaits what a replacement will do in mitigating some of these controversies. It is imperative that the President appoints a relatively less visible person to enable him draw more attention to the functions of the office rather than the personality of the occupant of the office. A person without much political visibility or adverse political baggage will surely bring in credibility and respect to the Office.

It is therefore safe to summarize that the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President is an important coordinating centre for the effective governance of the country under the leadership of the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the federation. One of the requirements of the office is to simplify complex operations for Mr. President to enable him understand issues and operational modalities in a manner that aids effective decision making.

Here is the original post:
Searchlight on Mr. Presidents New Chief of Staff - THISDAY Newspapers