Posts tagged with "The New York Times"

In pushback to Trump, Supreme Court allows release of hundreds of January 6 documents

January 21, 2022

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, January 19,  refused a request from former President Donald Trump to block the release of White House records concerning the January 6 attack on the Capitol—effectively rejecting Trump’s claim of executive privilege and clearing the way for the House committee investigating the riot to start receiving the documents hours later, reports The New York Times.

The court, with only Justice Clarence Thomas noting a dissent, let stand an appeals court ruling that Trump’s desire to maintain the confidentiality of internal White House communications was outweighed by the need for a full accounting of the attack and the disruption of the certification of the 2020 electoral count.

In an unsigned order, the majority wrote that Mr. Trump’s request for a stay while the case moved forward presented weighty issues, including “whether and in what circumstances a former president may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent president to waive the privilege.”

But an appeals court’s ruling against Trump did not turn on those questions, the order said. “Because the court of appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former president necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the order said.

Within hours of the decision, the National Archives began turning over hundreds of pages of documents to the committee.v A Justice Department spokesperson said on Wednesday evening that the documents had been delivered to the committee. But a spokesperson for the panel said on Thursday morning that the committee had received only some of the documents and expected the rest to be delivered as quickly as the archives could produce them.

Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee, and Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and the vice chairwoman, called the decision “a victory for the rule of law and American democracy.”

“Our work goes forward to uncover all the facts about the violence of January 6 and its causes,” they said.

Research contact: @nytimes

One America News to be dropped by DirecTV, a major distributor

January 18, 2021

One America News Network—the far-right pay-to-play cable channel, which, since 2013, has spread conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, the January 6 Capitol attack, and the safety of coronavirus vaccines—will be dropped by one of its largest television distributors later this year, reports The New York Times.

The decision by the distributor, DirecTV, a satellite and streaming network with about 15 million subscribers, will come as a significant setback for One America News and its owners, the Herring family. Losing its slot on the DirecTV lineup will almost certainly diminish the network’s overall audience and cut into its annual revenue.

DirecTV did not elaborate on the precise reasons behind its decision. “We informed Herring Networks that, following a routine internal review, we do not plan to enter into a new contract when our current agreement expires,” a spokesman for DirecTV said in an email on Saturday, January15. DirecTV also plans to drop a second channel owned by the Herrings called AWE, which features lifestyle and entertainment programs.

Herring Networks did not respond on Saturday to requests for comment. The move by DirecTV was first reported by Bloomberg News.

Chanel Rion, the chief White House correspondent for One America News, derided DirecTV in a Twitter post on Friday, January 14, that referred to the decision to drop the channel. “With moves like this, DirecTV will have to become state-owned to survive,” Ms. Rion wrote, adding, “They would have better luck in Pyongyang.”

One America News, which is based in San Diego, launched in 2013. Beginning with the 2016 election, the network acted as a venue for viewpoints and coverage aligned with Donald J. Trump and his right-wing allies.

Its anchors have regularly questioned the outcome of the 2020 election. The network is facing defamation lawsuits from two election technology companies, Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems, both of which have accused the channel of spreading falsehoods that they manipulated vote tallies to swing the election to current President Joe Biden.

One America News has also promoted the false theory that left-wing agitators, and not Trump supporters, were the primary instigators of the Capitol riot.

The channel also has aired false and misleading reports about the safety and efficacy of coronavirus vaccines. In June, one anchor, Pearson Sharp, told viewers: “The fallout from the coronavirus vaccine continues to grow, and the toll on human life is now worse than anyone could have imagined.”

DirecTV is one of only a few major television distributors that carries One America News; another is Verizon Fios. The channel is also available to stream online, and it maintains a popular YouTube page with more than 1.4 million subscribers.

Research contact: @nytimes

Free and easy: Insurers will have to cover eight at-home virus tests per month

January 13, 2022

Private insurers soon will have to cover the cost of eight at-home coronavirus tests per member per month, the Biden Administration said on Monday, January 10, reports The New York Times.

Americans will be able to get the tests at their health plan’s “preferred” pharmacies and other retailers with no out-of-pocket costs, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. They can also buy the tests elsewhere and file claims for reimbursement, just as they often do for medical care.

“Today’s action further removes financial barriers and expands access to COVID-19 tests for millions of people,” Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the Biden Administration’s Medicare and Medicaid chief, said in a statement about the new guidelines.

Roughly 150 million Americans, or about 45% of the population, are privately insured—mostly through their employers. Each enrolled dependent of the primary insurance holder counts as a member.

At out-of-network facilities, insurers’ responsibility would be capped at $12 per test, meaning people could be responsible for any additional costs.

But if a health plan does not establish a network of “preferred” retailers where patients can get tests covered upfront, it will be responsible for whatever claims its patients submit for their eight monthly rapid tests, with no limit on the price.

Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, said the policy could save families hundreds of dollars a month.

“I would love to see a more comprehensive national testing policy where these tests are free for everybody, regardless of insurance status,” she said. “Will it help everybody? No. It is definitely not the ideal way to lower barriers to COVID testing. But it is helpful.”

Rapid at-home tests are typically sold in packs of two, ranging in cost from about $14 to $34. That can be prohibitively expensive, especially when tests are purchased in bulk.

Some local governments in the United States have invested heavily in rapid testing to counter the latest wave of cases. Washington, D.C., which has experienced a substantial surge in virus cases, now allows residents to pick up four free rapid tests daily at libraries across the city.

The new Biden policy will not apply retroactively to at-home tests that Americans already have purchased. Tests ordered or administered by health providers will continue to be covered by insurance without any co-payment or deductible under a law requiring insurers to fully cover tests at doctor’s offices, public sites, and other facilities.

The Administration is working on other efforts to get coronavirus tests to people regardless of their insurance status—including a plan to deliver 500 million free rapid tests to the homes of Americans who order them, starting later this month.

That plan, along with the new rules for insurers announced Monday, is part of a broader effort by the Biden Administration in recent weeks to catch up to skyrocketing demand for rapid tests, as virus cases have exploded around the nation with the arrival of the highly contagious Omicron variant.

Research contact: @nytimes

‘The New York Times’ to acquire ‘The Athletic’ for $550 million in cash

January 7, 2022

The New York Times has agreed to acquire the The Athletic in an all-cash deal—valuing the sports media startup at $550 million, a source familiar with the deal confirmed to Axios.

It’s a huge victory for The Athletic, which had been shopping a deal for months, Axios says. The subscription-based sports media company was under pressure to sell in light of how much cash it’s lost over the past two years.

The Athletic Co-Founders Alex Mather and Adam Hansmann will stay on after the deal, which was expected to be announced at market close on Thursday, January 6.

Sources told Axios in May that the Times approached The Athletic following a report about a potential deal between The Athletic and Axios in March.

The Athletic was founded six years ago and has raised around $140 million to-date. It last raised $50 million in January 2020—putting its latest valuation at around $500 million.

The company has hired hundreds of journalists across the USA and the UK to produce quality long-form journalism about sports. In recent months, it’s began experimenting with advertising and investing more in podcasts.

Like most digital media companies, The Athletic laid off staffers early on during the pandemic, but has picked up on hiring since. The company employs about 600 people

According to Axios, the deal makes sense for the Times, which is sitting on $1 billion in cash and is looking to increase its subscriber numbers.

Research contact: @axios

Attorney General Merrick Garland vows to pursue January 6 inquiry ‘at any level’

January 7, 2022

In remarks delivered one day before the first anniversary of the January 6 Capitol riot, Attorney General Merrick Garland emphasized a commitment to the rule of law and to following the facts wherever they lead, reports The New York Times.

Facing criticism from Democrats and a few Republicans to hold former President Donald J. Trump accountable for his role in inspiring the riot at the Capitol. Garland vowed on Wednesday that the Justice Department would pursue wrongdoing “at any level,” saying he would defend democratic institutions from attack and threats of violence.

Speaking at Department of Justice headquarters, Garland said:

As we prepare to mark a solemn anniversary tomorrow, it is a fitting time to reaffirm that we at the Department of Justice will do everything in our power to defend the American people and American democracy. The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law, whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. We will follow the facts wherever they lead. We understand that there are questions about how long the investigation will take and about what exactly we are doing. As long as it takes and whatever it takes for justice to be done consistent with the facts and the law. I understand that this may not be the answer some are looking for.

The attorney general also obliquely addressed critics who have urged him to disclose more about the department’s inquiry, including whether investigators are scrutinizing Trump.

He reiterated that the department would not share details about its findings, even as investigators have issued 5,000 subpoenas and search warrants, inspected over 20,000 hours of video footage and sifted through an estimated 15 terabytes of data. “I understand that this may not be the answer some are looking for,” he said. “But we will and we must speak through our work. Anything else jeopardizes the viability of our investigations and the civil liberties of our citizens.”

While the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack has signaled an openness to making a criminal referral to the department if it comes across evidence that Trump or others broke the law, Garland did not mention Trump or any specific investigation the department might be pursuing.

Garland has never given any substantive public indication of whether or how aggressively the department might be building a case against Trump or his advisers, and it is not clear what charges they could be subject to.

Some Democrats have openly pushed Garland to make clear that he intends to act.

Research contact: @nytimes

A new ban on surprise medical bills starts this week

January 4, 2022

For years, millions of Americans with medical emergencies could receive another nasty surprise: A bill from a doctor whom they did not choose—and who does not accept their insurance. However, a law that went into effect on Saturday, January 1, will make many such bills illegal, reports The New York Times.

The change is the result of bipartisan legislation passed during the Trump Administration and fine-tuned by the Biden Administration. It is a major new consumer protection, covering nearly all emergency medical services, and most routine care.

“I thinkthis is so pro-consumer, it’s so pro-patient — and its effect will eventually be felt by literally everybody who interacts with a health care system,” said Senator Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), who was part of a bipartisan group of lawmakers who wrote the bill. He said he counted the bill as among his top achievements as a lawmaker.

Even with insurance, emergency medical care can still be expensive, and patients with high-deductible plans could still face large medical bills. But the law will eliminate the risk that an out-of-network doctor or hospital will send an extra bill. Those bills add up to billions in costs for consumers each year.

“This is such an important consumer victory because it is going to protect consumers from an egregious and pervasive billing practice that has just grown over the years,” said Patricia Kelmar, the health care campaigns director at the consumer group U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG).

Specifically, if you are having a medical emergency and go to an urgent care center or emergency room, you can’t be charged more than the cost sharing you are accustomed to for in-network services. This is where the law’s protections are the simplest and the most obvious for people with health insurance.

You will still be responsible for things like a deductible or a copayment. But once patients make that normal payment, they should expect no more bills.

“We shouldn’t have to depend on people knowing minutia about insurance regulation in order for them to get care or not be unfairly billed,” said Anthony Wright, the executive director of Health Access California, a patient group that supported the federal law and that fought for a law that banned surprise bills in California starting in 2017.

Several studies found that around 20% of U.S. patients who had emergency care were treated by someone outside their insurance network, including emergency room doctors, radiologists or laboratories. Any of those providers could send patients an extra bill after the fact, and some medical groups did so routinely. Such bills are now illegal.

There is one important exception.

The new law does not prevent ambulance companies from billing you directly for their services if they travel on roads. It does offer protections against surprise bills from air ambulances.

Ground ambulances were left out of the recent legislation because legislators determined they would need a different regulatory approach. Congress established a commission to study the issue and may consider reforms.

Eleven states prevent ambulances from sending out-of-network medical bills. Patients who live in the other states are quite likely to get a bill in the mail if they require an ambulance. Research shows as many as half of people who need an ambulance receive such a bill, though the amount is not always large.

Behind the scenes, medical providers are still fighting with regulators over how they will be paid when they provide out-of-network care. But those disputes will not interfere with the law’s key consumer protections.

Finally, for scheduled services, like knee operations, C-sections, or colonoscopies, it’s important you choose a facility and a main doctor that is in your insurance plan’s network. If you do that, the law bars anyone else who treats you from sending you a surprise bill. This also addresses a large problem. Surprise bills from anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, assistant surgeons, and laboratories were common before.

If, for some reason, you are having such a service and you really want an out-of-network doctor to be part of your care, that doctor typically needs to notify you at least three days before your procedure and offer a “good faith estimate” of how much you will be charged. If you sign a form agreeing to pay extra, you could get additional bills. But the hospital or clinic can’t force you to sign such a form as a condition of your care, and the form should include other choices of doctors who will accept your insurance.

“People should really, really think carefully before they sign that form, because they will waive all of their protections,” Kelmar said. She recommended that patients skip right to the part of the form that lists covered alternatives.

Research contact: @nytimes

Tesla to halt games on infotainment screens in moving cars

December 28, 2021

Under pressure from U.S. auto safety regulators, Tesla has agreed to stop allowing drivers and passengers to play video games on center touch screens while its vehicles are moving, reports The Chicago Tribune.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says the company will send out a software update over the Internet to ensure that the function—called “Passenger Play”—will be locked and won’t work while vehicles are in motion.

The New York Times has reported that the Tesla service update inserts a warning reading: “Playing while the car is in motion is only for passengers,” and that a button will ask for confirmation that the player is a passenger (although a driver could play simply by pressing the button).

The move, announced on Thursday, December 23, came one day after the agency announced it would open a formal investigation into distracted driving concerns about Tesla’s video games, some of which could be played while cars are being driven. The U.S. auto safety regulator said on December 22 that it would look at 580,000 Tesla vehicles sold since 2017 that have the feature.

\Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk has been promoting in-vehicle entertainment, as he believes it will be highly desirable once vehicles become autonomous.

An NHTSA spokesperson said in a statement that the change came after regulators discussed concerns about the system with Tesla. The first update went out Wednesday as part of Tesla’s holiday software release, and the rest of the vehicles should have received it by Monday, December 27.

The agency says its investigation of Tesla’s feature will continue even with the update. It was not clear whether NHTSA would require Tesla to do a formal recall with the update. In the past the agency has asked Tesla why it should not be required to do recalls with safety-related software updates.

“The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers from selling vehicles with defects posing unreasonable risks to safety, including technologies that distract drivers from driving safely,” NHTSA’s statement said. The agency said it assesses how manufacturers identify and guard against distraction hazards due to misuse or intended use of screens and other convenience technology.

The agency announced Wednesday that it would formally investigate Tesla’s screens after an owner from the Portland, Oregon, area filed a complaint when he discovered that a driver could play games while the cars are moving.

In documents detailing the investigation, NHTSA said “Passenger Play” has been available since December 2020. Before that, enabling gameplay was only possible when its vehicles were in park.

The NHTSA documents do not list any crashes or injuries caused by the problem.

Tesla owner Vince Patton, 59, filed the complaint last month after discovering the gaming feature could be played by drivers. Patton, who loves his car and says he has nothing against Tesla, worries that drivers will play games and become dangerously distracted. “Somebody’s going to get killed,” he said. “It’s absolutely insane.”

Research contact: @chicagotribune

Do you know which bathroom stall is (almost always) the cleanest?

December 24, 2021

Some of us gleaned the knowledge from a germophobic parent. Others learned it from a glossy teen magazine. One person said she might be making up the memory of learning it at all, although she somehow follows the protocol religiously. The secret? That the first bathroom stall is the least popular—and thus the cleanest, reports Slate.

But the less-bathroom-savvy among us may be wasting brain space on The Great Stall Choice. Maybe the first stall seems too obvious, they think, so better go for another one. Sometimes, on a whim, they head to the far end,or gravitate to the middle stall.

More than a few, however, are unburdened by this daily decision-making process. These first-stall devotees are part of what is effectively a private club—though a less exclusive one than its members would hope. As it turns out, first-stall hearsay has been making the rounds over the past few decades.

Leigh, a consultant in San Francisco, recently told Slate, “I really thought it was this life hack that only I had.” She’s been a first-stall user since high school.

“Every time that I’m in the first stall and that it’s clean, I feel a little tiny celebration,” she said. “I just feel so happy that I cracked this code and had this lesson early on in my life.” (And it was indeed a lesson—the information was on a poster in or the chalkboard of a high-school math teacher.)

Leigh’s sentiment was shared by a number of  members of Slate’s editorial team, who, like her, were recently unsettled to discover their “secret” lies somewhere between actual secret and, as Leigh put it, “universal truth.”

First-stall users range from dogmatic to casual. Leigh, for instance, always chooses the first stall unless it turns out to be unclean.

Slate writer Christina Cauterucci also strictly follows first-stall advice, which she learned from her mother a decade or two ago, with three notable exceptions: When “it’s visibly gross, it’s a handicap-accessible stall, or there’s someone in the stall next to it, in which case I’ll pick a stall with at least a one-stall buffer between me and that person if possible,” she said.

The buffer is an important exception—one that others, such as Slate writer Molly Olmstead, adhere to, even when it means walking farther. As Molly said, “My sweet spot is the intersection of laziness and personal space.”

Former Slate writer Ruth Graham heard the advice as a preteen. (Ruth is now at the The New York Times.) She’s less regimented and said she probably chooses the first stall “more than half the time.”

June Thomas, a Slate Podcasts producer, is similarly uncommitted. (She’s a first-stall user, but of the rare variety that hadn’t heard the claim.) “I like to think I let my intuition guide me,” June said, “but chances are it always leads me to the first stall.”

It’s unclear whether the claim holds up, although researchers do estimate that the middle and farthest stalls get the most traffic. It’s not uncommon to see warnings to avoid the middle stall at all costs. This line of reasoning is based on what psychologists call centrality preference,” which posits that people prefer the middle option when presented with similar options.

1995 study, which analyzed toilet paper usage over a ten-week period in a public restroom in California, supports this argument: Sixty percent of the finished rolls were from the four-stall bathroom’s two middle stalls, while 40% came from the end stalls.

However, other research shows that women, in particular, gravitate toward stalls farther from the door. This could be because they’ve assumed, like Isabella, a curator in São Paulo who has used the farthest stall since she was 14, that “fewer people would make the effort to go the distance.”

But it more likely has do with privacy and the fact that U.S. bathroom stall doors often have gaps at the sides.

Indeed, the vague suspicion of a privacy factor is perhaps the most important piece of evidence supporting claims about first-stall cleanliness. Philip Tierno, a professor in the Department of Pathology at New York University, told The Healthy in 2019, “It’s true that if you take a survey … people tend to (subconsciously or not) go to the stalls that are in the more sequestered section of the bathroom, and avoid those up front.”

What’s missing from this analysis, as you’ve probably noticed, is men. It’s perhaps too gender-normative to conclude that men simply care less and leave it at that. So we talked with a few male friends, all of whom were too embarrassed to attach their names to this highly scientific endeavor. None cared about germs or stalls with the most foot traffic. For the most part, they were surprised to hear that people even think about this, though one did mention that he never chooses a stall adjacent to another person and prefers stalls near a wall (again: privacy).

Another admitted he has a “slight bias” for the first stall due to convenience; he also brought up urinal etiquette—choose the far end, space yourself out with gaps in between—but said that it doesn’t extend to stall use: “Stalls are stalls! They have the highest level of privacy afforded already!”

The verdict? The first stall is probably still your safest bet if the least germy toilet is important to you and you’re in a women’s bathroom. That is, until people see this article.

Research contact: @Slate

Kraft literally will pay you to not make cheesecake this holiday season

December 17, 2021

In light of the national cream cheese shortage, Kraft is offering customers $20 to bring another dessert to holiday gatherings this holiday season instead of cheesecake, reports NBC News.

Supply chain issues have disrupted U.S. markets for months—resulting in shortages of medical supplies, liquor, athleisure goods, toys, gasoline, and now cream cheese. In New York, bagel shops are struggling to meet the demand for the condiment, The New York Times has reported, as suppliers’ inventories run dry.

In response, Kraft, which manufactures Philadelphia Cream Cheese, is offering 18,000 people a $20 reimbursement for buying desserts that don’t involve cream cheese this December.

“A delicious cheesecake is a holiday tradition that many families look forward to,” the company wrote on a site promoting the deal. “So, if cheesecake is on less holiday tables this year, we want to make sure that you still get that holiday feeling, even if through other desserts.”

Would-be cream cheese buyers can enter to claim one of 10,000 spots on the promotion website beginning Friday, December 17, at 12 p.m. (EST). An additional 8,000 slots will open Saturday at 12 p.m. (EST).

Those who land a spot will receive a unique link from Kraft. Upon confirmation of the reservation, customers can then buy “any dessert,” as long as they get a receipt dated between Friday, December 16, and Friday, December 24.

Starting December 28, customers can use their unique link to submit their receipt for a “chance to receive a $20 digital reward,” according to the promotion website.

 Research contact: @NBCNews

Biden plans forceful push for voting rights

December 17, 2021

The White House wants to mark the new year with a forceful push for voting rights—portraying the protection of the ballot as a battle for democracy itself. But despite a renewed emphasis from an increasingly impatient and frustrated base, prospects for legislative success still look grim, reports Politico.

West Wing aides believe that fresh federal efforts to defend the ballot and install safeguards ahead of the midterm elections are likely to be dashed by some Democrats’ resistance to changing the Senate filibuster—a reluctance that has been spearheaded for months by Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia).

The White House has been considering connecting the voting rights drive with the upcoming first anniversary of the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, making the case that the most sacred tenant of America’s democracy remains under siege one year after the insurrection fueled by the election fraud lies told by former President Donald Trump.

To strongly make that case, the president and his team had been hoping to clear the legislative deck by the January 6 anniversary. But the president’s social spending bill, known as the Build Back Better Act, appears stalled for the foreseeable future in the Senate, with Manchin’s refusal to commit to the $1.75 trillion legislation seemingly certain to push the measure into early 2022.

According to Politico, Biden signaled on Wednesday, December 14, that he’d be fine with prioritizing election reform for the time being, saying: “If we can get the congressional voting rights done, we should do it. … There’s nothing domestically more important than voting rights.” But, previously, White House aides had consistently signaled that they wanted the social spending bill first and voting rights second.

That sequencing has irked some of the president’s most fervent supporters, who fear he may get neither.

“The time is now. The urgency could not be more palpable than it is now,” said the  Reverand Al Sharpton, president of the National Action Network and a Biden confidant, who, like others, argued that voting rights should have been the Administration’s top priority in the wake of the moves by nearly 20 Republican-led legislatures to tighten state election laws.

“An inaction at this point would lead to an inaction of Black voters. People are saying, ‘If they don’t do this, I’m not voting,’” the civil rights leader said. “People are saying they feel betrayed.”

Echoing the sentiment of a growing number of Democrats who feel that Biden has simply not placed the defense of voting rights and elections at the center of his presidency, Sharpton said activists are now targeting Martin Luther King Jr. Day  on January 18 as an unofficial deadline for at least showing some real progress on voting rights. He and other activists plan to ramp up their criticisms of Democrats—with potential threats to refrain from campaigning ahead of the midterms—if action is not taken.

“I don’t want to become too dramatic,” said Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-Missouri), “but voting rights may be the only thing we have to at least halt the trek away from democracy.”

While the full scale of what the White House is planning remains unclear, Biden is expected to deliver a speech connecting the day to the defense of the ballot, aides said.

But aides also recognize that a full-court press on voting rights—even if good politics—would be doomed to fail without a change to the filibuster. And they are skeptical that they can bring reluctant Democrats on board for such changes.

While Manchin has said he is open to reforming the chamber’s rules in a bipartisan manner, he does not support nuking the legislative filibuster.

Other Democrats are losing patience, however. Senator Raphael Warnock (D-Georgia) delivered a passionate speech from the Senate floor this week pushing Democrats to act on voting rights—noting that the Senate just scrapped a 60-vote threshold to pass a debt ceiling hike. Represenhtative Jim Clyburn (D-South Carolina), who has been in touch with Warnock, said he believes Democrats are “in a good place with the voting rights bill,” though it’s “not the timeline that I would want.”

“I don’t want it to be constrained by trying to do it before the end of the year. I don’t know that you have to do it before the end of the year,” Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House and a close Biden ally, said in an interview. “I just want us to get a bill done that will help preserve this democracy because if we don’t, I think we’ve lost this democracy.”

Research contact: @politico