Power Up: A VP debate for the times: Pence and Harris face off as White House coronavirus outbreak expands

All this makes the stakes especially high for Vice President Pence, 61, and Sen. Kamala Harris, 55, who will face off tonight for the first time to defend the policies and records of their candidates. These are some key measures of success for both sides, according to sources close to both campaigns: 

Can Pence spin the White House coronavirus outbreak that infected at least 18 people in contact with Trump? 

Trump’s No. 2 – and head of the White House coronavirus task force – will almost certainly be forced to address the outbreak that’s ensnared the president, along with the administration’s handling of the pandemic that has killed nearly 210,000 people in the United States. “Pence’s challenge is to explain what happened in the last few days and defend it,a Trump campaign source told Power Up.

  • You wonder why [Trump’s] numbers with seniors are hurting? You have to show you care,” the source said. “There’s probably a way to get them back because they probably don’t want to vote for Biden but they want Trump to acknowledge that he gets it.”
  • Still, some questions could be nearly impossible for Pence to answer – namely, the potential exposure of Trump’s supporters: “I can basically defend anything about the White House and coronavirus except for them allowing Trump to go to Bedminster – I’m sorry but there is no good spin on that specific point,” the source added.
  • Trump mingled with more than 200 people at his New Jersey golf club last Thursday, hours before he tested positive – and after knowing he was exposed to the virus.

Will Pence – and the Trump team – take more safety precautions at the debate this time? 

Trump’s family was criticized for taking off their masks at least week’s presidential debate. Now that six of the eight members of Trump’s debate prep team have tested positive so far, including former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and campaign manager Bill Stepien, a public show of masks and distancing could go a long way to show the White House takes the virus seriously. 

  • Yet Pence’s team fought hard against the wall of plexiglass that will divide the candidates on the Salt Lake City debate stage – and traveled to the debate yesterday with his spokeswoman Katie Miller whose husband, top White House aide Stephen Miller, tested positive for coronavirus last night.

Making things more complicated: Questions about whether Pence himself is at risk are already taking center stage. Pence’s doctor released a statement that the vice president’s coronavirus PCR test came out negative yesterday afternoon and therefore is “encouraged to go about his normal activities and does not need to quarantine.” 

Pence’s clean up of Trump’s coronavirus messaging could be critical on the campaign trail: Trump’s advisers, staffers, and allies see the president’s response to his own diagnosis “as a missed opportunity,” our colleagues Ashley Parker and Josh Dawsey report. “Some had hoped that he would emerge from his hospital stay slightly

Read more

Power Up: Just how sick is Trump? Washington eager for details amid conflicting messages from White House

Many questions about the president’s condition — and the administration’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak within its own orbit — remain unanswered as the White House offers contradictory information about the status of his health. 

The White House has thus far painted an incomplete picture of the situation that required Trump to be admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday. They gave notice that Trump has begun a steroid treatment usually reserved for patients with severe illness and that he’s suffered twice from bouts of low oxygen. Yet Trump and his medical team contend that he is doing well and could be discharged from Walter Reed as soon as Monday. 

Piling onto the confusion: Trump defied public health guidelines and briefly left the hospital to wave at his supporters from a motorcade parade to visit his supporters. Trump’s impromptu breach of quarantine, derided as cavalier by doctors and Secret Service, underscored open questions about the current health of the moderately obese 74 year-old who is being treated with a range of experimental therapeutics. 

An admission by White House doctor Sean Conley is fueling criticism of a lack of transparency: “Trump’s medical team tried to clear up the muddled picture it had created the previous day when White House doctor Sean Conley falsely suggested that Trump had not been given supplemental oxygen Conley openly admitted to withholding truthful information about Trump’s plummeting blood-oxygen levels Friday, indicating he did so to put a positive spin on the president’s improving condition,” Toluse Olorunnipa, Josh Dawsey and Amy Goldstein report. 

  • The reasoning: “I was trying to reflect the upbeat attitude that the team, the president, that his course of illness, has had,” Conley said Sunday. “I didn’t want to give any information that might steer the course of illness in another direction. And in doing so, you know, it came off that we were trying to hide something, which wasn’t necessarily true.”
  • Zooming out: “The episode continued what has been a days-long torrent of falsehoods, obfuscation, evasion, misdirection and imprecision from those surrounding Trump as he faces the greatest threat to a president’s health in decades.”

The confusion has penetrated the halls of the White House, too: Not even Trump administration staffers trust what they’re hearing about the state of Trump’s health, despite being potentially exposed to the virus as well. 

THE NEXT CLUE: Whether Trump is actually released today. 

  • “For a coronavirus patient admitted Friday to be sent home Monday ‘would be remarkably atypical,” Robert Wachter, chairman of the University of California at San Francisco’s department of medicine, told Toluse, Josh and Amy. “For someone sick enough to have required remdesivir and dexamethasone, I can’t think of a situation in which a patient would be okay to leave on day three, even with the White House’s medical capacity.” 
  • Many infectious-disease experts say the medical details release suggest a more severe case of covid-19 than his physicians acknowledged, per the New York Times’s Katie Thomas and Roni Caryn Rabin:
Read more

House Antitrust Chair Says Big Tech Abuses Gatekeeper Power

(Bloomberg) — Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc. and Facebook Inc. abuse their power as gatekeepers of the internet, said the head of a House antitrust panel who’s poised to propose legislative changes to rein in the technology giants.

Loading...

Load Error

“Each platform uses their gatekeeper position to protect their own power,” said Representative David Cicilline, who chairs a House antitrust panel that’s spent more than a year probing the dominance of the internet platforms. “By controlling the infrastructure of the digital age, they have surveilled other businesses to identify potential rivals — and ultimately bought out, copied, or cut off their competitive threats.”

Cicilline, who spoke Thursday during a hearing with experts on competition law, is preparing a final report recommending changes to the legislative and regulatory framework. That report is expected to be released as early as next week, according to people familiar with the matter.

Sundar Pichai, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg testified voluntarily in July before the subcommittee. Cicilline criticized their testimony as being evasive and non-responsive and said “they raised new questions about whether they believe their companies are beyond oversight.”

Representatives from Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on Cicilline’s remarks.

Among the recommendations that Cicilline has floated is a prohibition against running a platform and competing on it at the same time. That would potentially bar Google from bidding in the online ad exchanges it operates or stop Amazon from providing a marketplace for independent merchants while selling its own products.

Cicilline has said he wants bipartisan support for his ideas, but hasn’t revealed whether he has Republican support for his proposals.

The GOP typically views changes to antitrust law skeptically. Although some of the committee’s Republicans have been critical of some of the technology companies’ practices, not all agree that new legislation is necessary.

“We ultimately disagree on the future of antitrust laws,” said Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who is the top Republican on the subcommittee. He suggested he wants to see improved enforcement of existing laws, but is opposed to changes that would prompt break-ups of the companies.

For decades, the internet giants have enjoyed laissez-faire regulation in the U.S., including scant antitrust enforcement of mergers. Still, they are coming under increasing attack in Washington over a range of issues including misinformation, hate speech, election meddling, and what Republicans decry as anti-conservative bias.

In addition to Cicilline’s investigation, federal and state antitrust enforcers are poised to file a historic monopolization lawsuit against Google, and additional cases could be in the pipeline, Bloomberg has reported. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is also preparing a possible case against Facebook. Amazon and Apple are also facing inquiries by federal antitrust authorities.

Witnesses at the hearing included Bill Baer, a former Justice Department antitrust chief under President Obama; Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham University known for progressive views on antitrust; and Rachel Bovard of the conservative-allied Internet Accountability Project.

Baer called for Congress to pass

Read more

House, Senate diverge on curbing Louisiana governor’s power

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Louisiana House Republicans on Thursday started advancing multiple approaches to intervene in Gov. John Bel Edwards’ coronavirus decision-making, as disagreements emerge with the Senate on the best method of attack.

The House and Senate, in their first week of a monthlong special session, disagree over how far lawmakers should go and what’s within the limits of their constitutional authority.

Negotiations continue behind the scenes as lawmakers in the majority-Republican Legislature try to determine what can win support from both chambers — and what could get enough votes to either override Edwards’ veto or avoid the Democratic governor’s desk entirely.

The House and Governmental Affairs Committee backed bills that would require lawmakers to determine whether a governor can renew an emergency or disaster declaration after 30 days. The panel also approved a more immediate measure sponsored by House Speaker Clay Schexnayder that would jettison Edwards’ coronavirus orders for a month after the special session ends.

“It allows us to take a deep breath and see what direction we need to go in,” said Schexnayder, a Gonzales Republican.

The committee also advanced a proposal by Republican Senate President Page Cortez that received unanimous Senate support a day earlier, though some House Republicans suggested the measure does very little to address their complaints.

Cortez’s bill would require a governor to give legislative leaders advance notice and explanation when extending an emergency order — but doesn’t give lawmakers new avenues to revoke or stall the orders.

The proposals move to the full House for debate, with little clarity on what approach is gaining traction. Democrats oppose anything that would substantially chip away at Edwards’ authority.

“The governor has been well within his rights in declaring steps that we as a state need to take to protect one another,” said Rep. Candace Newell, a New Orleans Democrat.

Conservative Republicans angered by Edwards’ continued restrictions on businesses and activities want to scrap the governor’s coronavirus rules now.

“We believe in individual freedoms to wear a mask or not, to stay home or not, and the time has come. Seven months in, we feel it’s time to loosen up the reins,” said Rep. Dodie Horton, a Haughton Republican. She added later: “We want to be free again.”

Cortez and his bill cosponsor, Republican Sen. Patrick McMath of Covington, said going further than their proposal and trying to require legislative approval of a governor’s orders could violate the state constitution. They defended their measure against criticism that it’s window-dressing, not substance.

“Folks in my district aren’t going to love this. But it respects the separation of powers,” McMath said. “Oversight is incredibly powerful.”

Lawmakers complain they have been sidelined in the decision-making.

Edwards administration officials note the governor has loosened restrictions several times, most recently in mid-September. They say the rules are less restrictive than many other states with lower rates of virus infections and follow White House recommendations.

James Waskom, the governor’s homeland security director, cautioned that yanking the public health emergency

Read more

Power Up: Former Trump advisers worry about the waning influence of scientists inside White House

  • “In preparing Homeland Security officials for questions about Rittenhouse from the media, the document suggests that they note that he ‘took his rifle to the scene of the rioting to help defend small business owners.’”

At the White House

IT”S NOT JUST THE SCIENTISTS in the Trump administration who are alarmed by the expanding role of Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist who joined the White House as a pandemic adviser in August.

Joe Grogan, the former Domestic Policy Council chief and member of the coronavirus task force who left the White House in May, told Power Up he is “troubled” by the recent spate of attacks “from within senior leadership ranks” on Centers for Disease Control Director Robert Redfield, top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, and Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator. 

  • “Exposing the president to iconoclastic or dissenting views isn’t a mistake especially with Trump, Grogan told Power Up. “He benefits from having a multitude of views and allowing him to participate in back and forth … But I am troubled by some of the attacks that have come from within senior leadership ranks on [Birx], Redfield and Fauci. A number of those attacks are unfounded.”
  • “Who they want to get up there and speak is one thing, Grogan said, referring to briefings for the public. “But who is in the Oval Office debating issues? Is Atlas in there alone? Or in there with Birx, Redfield and other scientists who have spent their lives devoted to fighting infectious diseases?” 

Atlas, who does not have a background in infectious diseases or epidemiology, has said that fears about the novel coronavirus are overblown and introduced controversial ideas and measures to the president in response to the pandemic that has killed 206,000 Americans. NBC’s Monica Alba overheard Redfield last week in a conversation with a colleague on a commercial airline say Atlas was providing the president with incorrect information. 

  • Everything he says is false,” Redfield said during a phone call, Alba reported.
  • In a statement provided to NBC News, Atlas defended himself: “Everything I have said is directly from the data and the science. It echoes what is said by many of the top medical scientists in the world, including those at Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford.”
  • Of the backbiting against the administration’s top doctors, Grogan, who served as a senior policy adviser at the Food and Drug Administration for President George W. Bush and remains a Trump ally, explained: “There are ankle biters who are trying to jockey for position and out for themselves. But it’s damaging to have people going out anonymously to attack the country’s best experts.”

The White House disputed the idea that its top doctors have seen their roles diminished: “All of the medical experts in the Administration are working together around the clock to carry out the President’s number one priority: protecting the health and safety of the American people and defeating this virus from China,” White

Read more

House reaffirms commitment to peaceful transfer of power in nearly unanimous 397-5 vote

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly adopted a resolution reaffirming its commitment to the peaceful transfer of power over objections from a handful of Republican allies of President Trump.

Introduced by Rep. Eric Swalwell, California Democrat, the resolution was easily approved by a vote of 397-5. A nearly identical version offered in the Senate passed by unanimous consent last week.

Neither resolution names the president, although each was offered after he raised constitutional concerns by refusing to commit to leaving office if he loses to Democratic rival Joseph R. Biden.

“As the United States of America, the federal government has always had a peaceful transition of power, and it is a collective responsibility of this body to ensure that continues,” Mr. Swalwell said on the House floor before Tuesday’s vote. “Everyone in America knows that this is what makes us American. Everyone, that is, except President Trump.”

In addition to reaffirming the House’s commitment to the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, the resolution says it “intends that there should be no disruptions by the President or any person in power to overturn the will of the people of the United States.”

Mr. Trump said last week he will need to “see what happens” before deciding if he will relinquish power in the event he is defeated by Mr. Biden in November and voted out of office.

All five votes opposing the House resolution were cast by Republicans: Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Clay Higgins of Louisiana, Steve King of Iowa and Tom Massie of Kentucky.

Mr. Gaetz, a frequent defender of Mr. Trump, said he supports the peaceful transfer of power but has reasons for opposing the House resolution affirming as much.

“This resolution is a way for Democrats to attack the president and disguise the fact that they will refuse to accept the election results unless they win,” Mr. Gaetz said on the House floor.

Election Day is on Nov. 3, although millions of more Americans are expected to vote by mail this fall as opposed to in-person at polling places because of the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the integrity of the electoral process in recent weeks and has claimed increased mail-in voting will result in rampant fraud. Election officials disagree.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

fbq('init', '329974197684672'); fbq('init', '450591302454597');

fbq('track', "PageView"); fbq('track', 'ViewContent');

fbq('trackSingle', '450591302454597' , 'Subscribe', {value: '0.00', currency: 'USD', predicted_ltv: '0.00'});

Source Article

Read more

Texan Gohmert 1 of 5 House Republicans voting against resolution affirming peaceful transition of power

WASHINGTON — Texas U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert is standing by his Tuesday vote as one of only five Republicans opposing a House resolution to affirm the chamber’s support for a peaceful transfer of power after President Trump last week declined to commit to it if he loses reelection.

The Republican-controlled Senate passed a nearly identical resolution by unanimous consent last Thursday, but Gohmert said he couldn’t support the legislation because it “singles out” Trump in the presidential race against Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

“This bill on which I voted ‘No’ is nothing more than a means to attack President Trump, though he has made clear he will support a peaceful transition to the legally winning party after the election,” Gohmert said in a statement Wednesday morning.

The resolution does not mention either presidential candidate by name and affirms the House’s commitment that there will be “no disruptions by the President or any person in power to overturn the will of the people of the United States” following the Nov. 3 election. During the floor debate Tuesday evening, Gohmert said he supports a peaceful transition and unsuccessfully sought to amend the bill to include “or any candidate or anyone acting on a candidate’s behalf.”

Reps. Matt Gaetz, of Florida, Clay Higgins, of Louisiana, Steve King, of Iowa, and Thomas Massie, of Kentucky, joined the Tyler Republican in voting against the resolution. The measure was adopted in a bipartisan 397-5 vote.

“I know my colleagues on the other side have their own suspicions about what the motive is behind this and want to project onto it something that’s not in the language. But this was passed by 100 senators last week,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif. and the author of the resolution.

The votes from the House and the Senate came after Trump said he would “see what happens” when asked at a press conference last Wednesday if he would commit to a peaceful transition of power following the election. Trump reaffirmed that position during the first presidential debate Tuesday, claiming the election will be “a fraud like you’ve never seen.”

Without evidence, Trump has claimed for months that the rise in mail-in voting due to the coronavirus pandemic will defraud the election in favor of Biden.

“Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” Trump said last week.

Lawmakers in both parties have countered Trump’s remarks in the days since.

“The winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th. There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

When asked about the controversy during a news conference last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters, “we want a peaceful transfer of power. It’s very sad that you even have to ask that question.”

Due to the pandemic, results are unlikely to be clear for weeks following Election Day as

Read more

House to vote on resolution affirming peaceful transition of power

The House is slated to vote next week on a resolution that would reaffirm the chamber’s support for a peaceful transfer of power after President TrumpDonald John TrumpSteele Dossier sub-source was subject of FBI counterintelligence probe Pelosi slams Trump executive order on pre-existing conditions: It ‘isn’t worth the paper it’s signed on’ Trump ‘no longer angry’ at Romney because of Supreme Court stance MORE this week declined to commit to it if he loses reelection.

The vote will come after the Senate passed a similar resolution on Thursday by unanimous consent to affirm a hallmark of American democracy.

The House version is listed under a series of bills set to receive floor votes next week under an expedited process that requires a two-thirds supermajority for passage, indicating that it is expected to receive bipartisan support. A spokesperson for House Majority Leader Steny HoyerSteny Hamilton HoyerOn The Money: Anxious Democrats push for vote on COVID-19 aid | Pelosi, Mnuchin ready to restart talks | Weekly jobless claims increase | Senate treads close to shutdown deadline Vulnerable Democrats tell Pelosi COVID-19 compromise ‘essential’ Anxious Democrats amp up pressure for vote on COVID-19 aid MORE (D-Md.), who controls the schedule, confirmed Friday it will be on the floor next week.

The resolution, authored by Rep. Eric SwalwellEric Michael SwalwellSwalwell calls for creation of presidential crimes commission to investigate Trump when he leaves office ‘This already exists’: Democrats seize on potential Trump executive order on preexisting conditions Swalwell: Barr has taken Michael Cohen’s job as Trump’s fixer MORE (D-Calif.), does not explicitly mention Trump’s comments this week.

Instead, the two page resolution states that the House “reaffirms its commitment to the orderly and peaceful transfer of power called for in the Constitution of the United States” and “intends that there should be no disruptions by the President or any person in power to overturn the will of the people of the United States.”

Trump on Wednesday said that he would have to “see what happens” when asked if he would commit to a peaceful transition of power and tried to sow doubt, without evidence, about the reliability of voting by mail.

“Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” Trump said. “The ballots are out of control. You know it, and you know who knows it better than anyone else? The Democrats know it better than anyone else.”

Trump has repeatedly declined to say if he will accept the election results if he loses the election to Democratic presidential nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenPelosi slams Trump executive order on pre-existing conditions: It ‘isn’t worth the paper it’s signed on’ Hillicon Valley: Subpoenas for Facebook, Google and Twitter on the cards | Wray rebuffs mail-in voting conspiracies | Reps. raise mass surveillance concerns Fox News poll: Biden ahead of Trump in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Ohio MORE.

When asked during an interview with Chris WallaceChristopher (Chris)

Read more

White House Chief of Staff Seeks to Clarify Trump’s Peaceful Transition of Power Comments

White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Friday sought to clarify President Donald Trump’s recent comments about whether he will commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the election.



Donald Trump wearing a suit and tie: President Donald Trump speaks to the press as he makes his way to board Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC on September 24, 2020. On Friday, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows sought to clarify comments the president has recently made about whether or not he will commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the election on November 3.


© MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images
President Donald Trump speaks to the press as he makes his way to board Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC on September 24, 2020. On Friday, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows sought to clarify comments the president has recently made about whether or not he will commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the election on November 3.

“I think he commits to a peaceful transfer as long as it is a fair election,” Meadows said Friday morning during an interview with CBS This Morning.

The president has frequently raised concerns, without evidence, about widespread voter fraud and has cast doubt on the dependability of mail-in voting, which Americans are expected to use more this year than ever before because of the continuing threats posed by the coronavirus pandemic.

Asked Wednesday if he would agree to a peaceful transition of power if Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins the election, Trump told reporters at a White House press briefing, “We’re going to have to see what happens.” He cited a general concern over ballots and added, “There won’t be a transfer, frankly; there’ll be a continuation.”

Trump made similar comments to his supporters and the press over the summer. He told his supporters during a campaign rally last month that a “rigged election” was the only way he would lose, and he told Fox News in July that he would “have to see” what the voting results are before he accepts them.

Meadows discussed the “very troubling” findings, which the FBI announced earlier this week, about nine mail-in ballots cast for Trump by members of the military that were found discarded in Pennsylvania. He also brought up reports in several states of problematic ballots that were thrown out during the primary elections. Investigations into the problematic ballots have revealed problems ranging from election officials receiving them after the deadline to voter signatures not matching those kept on file.

How To Vote By Mail And Make Sure Your Ballot Counts In The November Election

UP NEXT

UP NEXT

“What we want to make sure is that every vote counts—but that only the vote from one voter to the ballot box is what gets counted, and nothing less, nothing more. That’s what he’s referring to; that’s what we’re committed to,” Meadows said.

“Should we allow votes to come in and be counted a week after November 3? I don’t believe so. That’s what we’re talking about. Let’s make sure that the systems that we’ve had in place for decades—indeed centuries—are the same systems we have in place now.”

Trump’s Democratic rival during the 2016 election, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, warned Biden against quickly conceding the race during

Read more

The White House declines to clean up Trump’s comments on a peaceful transfer of power

“I wonder if you can just clean up or clarify something the president said yesterday,” ABC News’s Jonathan Karl asked White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany the following afternoon. “If he loses this election, can you assure us that there will be a peaceful transfer of power?”

It’s worth noting Karl’s slip-up there: He’s done this long enough to know that one of the roles press secretaries generally play is to “clean up” politically problematic remarks for the president. Which is to say, he expected that McEnany would want to spin the comments, reframe them in a way that didn’t suggest that Trump was embracing a refusal to accede in the event of a loss.

But McEnany is not a typical press secretary, just as Trump is not a typical president.

“You are referring to the question asked by the Playboy reporter, right?” McEnany replied. When Karl reiterated his question, McEnany again referred to the questioner’s publication, pointedly, emphasizing the word “Playboy.” She then said that the original question reflected the reporter’s “deranged wish” that Trump would leave the White House.

This isn’t a cleanup effort obviously. Instead, it’s an effort to disparage the question to which Trump was responding, by shaming the men’s magazine for which the reporter worked. Trump’s view of Playboy is not as hostile as McEnany’s response of course, given that he’s appeared on its cover, participated in one of its adult-themed videos and warmly embraced its employees.

“It’s a very direct and very simple question,” Karl continued. “If the president loses this election, will this White House, will this president assure us that there will be a peaceful transfer of power?”

“The president will accept the results of a free and fair election,” McEnany finally replied. She went on to disparage Democrats as being the ones unlikely to accept the election’s results.

“Are the results legitimate only if the president wins?” NBC News’s Peter Alexander asked.

“The president will accept the results of a free and fair election,” McEnany replied, emphasizing “free and fair” as robustly as she did “Playboy” a short while earlier. “He will accept the will of the American people.”

This might seem like a successful clean-up of Trump’s remarks. There you go: He’ll accept the election results. Easy-peasy. But it’s impossible not to understand why McEnany emphasized “free and fair” so pointedly, particularly given where the briefing went next.

“Yesterday when the president said, ‘Get rid of the ballots, there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,’ which particular ballots is he talking about wanting to get rid of and why does he think that would help him get elected?” a reporter asked.

“The president wants to get rid of mass mail-out voting,” McEnany replied. “And that’s not because it — he’s said clearly that that could go either way, it could damage either candidate’s chances because it’s a system that’s subject to fraud.”

She went on to outline evidence which she suggested supported that idea: ballots found

Read more