Posts tagged with "The New York Times"

Exercise caution: Gyms and coronavirus

March 10, 2020

Is it healthy to visit a health club right now? The spread of the coronavirus could make even the most ardent gym rats stress out about picking up barbells, using equipment and mats, or even just taking a crowded class where everyone is huffing and puffing.

There’s a lower risk of picking up the coronavirus at a gym or health club than at a church service, for example Dr. David Thomas, a professor of medicine and director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine., told The New York Times this week. By comparison, church services may include shaking hands and being in closer proximity to people.

But if you’re in a community where there have been cases of the coronavirus, “that’s, perhaps, a time to be more cautious with all types of exposures, including a gym,” Dr. Thomas advised the news outlet.

Sweat cannot transmit the virus but high-contact surfaces, such as free weights, can pose a problem, he said.

Scientists are still figuring out how the virus exactly spreads but have provided some guidance on how it seems to be transmitted. A study of other coronaviruses published in The Journal of Hospital Infection found they remained on metal, glass and plastic for anywhere from two hours to nine days.

Certain objects, like handles and doorknobs, are “disproportionally affected by hands, and those are the surfaces most likely to have viruses for that reason,” Dr. Thomas said.

The owner of a yoga studio in Washington State, where several coronavirus patients have died, according to The Yoga Journal, “says she’s seen a direct impact from all the hysteria in the area on both attendance and business.”

Equinox, the luxury fitness club brand, has sent notices to members, reassuring them that additional steps are being taken during the peak flu season and amid growing concerns about the coronavirus, the Times reports.

The additional steps include disinfecting all club areas with a hospital-grade solution three times a day, reminding people to stay home if they are sick and asking instructors to eliminate skin-to-skin contact, like hands-on adjustments during yoga, a spokesperson told the newspaper.

Brian Cooper, chief executive of YogaWorks, sent an email to the company’s clients, reassuring them that it was stepping up its cleaning processes “to keep our facilities a safe and welcoming environment for all students and staff.”

David Carney, president of Orangetheory Fitness, listed precautions in an email on Thursday. “Wipe down your equipment after every block, and don’t hesitate to request a new wipe whenever you need to,” he wrote.

But do you actually know what’s in those nondescript spray bottle at gyms that you’re supposed to use to wipe down your machine, mat and equipment? If you’re not sure, ask staff members what’s in the bottle or take your own wipes to the gym.

“I’ll probably bring my own wipes,” Dr. Thomas told the Times of his gym trip planned for later that day. “I’ll know that they’re the right wipes and they have the right concentration of alcohol.”

Diluted household bleach solutions, alcohol solutions with at least 70% alcohol, and several common household disinfectants should be effective against the coronavirus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Environmental Protection Agency released a list of disinfectants against the virus.

Most important: If you’re feeling sick, stay home. “This is mostly about how you keep from getting sick at a gym, but please don’t go to the gym if you feel sick,” Dr. Thomas said. “Don’t give it to other people.”

Research contact: @nytimes

You’re not listening to your spouse—and here’s why

March 4, 2020

“You’re not listening!” “Let me finish!” “That’s not what I said!” After “I love you,” these are among the most common refrains in close relationships, according to Kate Murphy—who is, not so coincidentally, the author of You’re Not Listening: What You’re Missing and Why It Matters. released by Celadon Books in January.

The Houston-based journalist recently wrote an article for The New York Times, noting that, “During my two years researching a book on listening, I learned something incredibly ironic about interpersonal communication: The closer we feel toward someone, the less likely we are to listen carefully to them. It’s called the closeness-communication bias and, over time, it can strain, and even end, relationships.”

Indeed, Murphy has found that, once you know a person well enough to feel you hae a close relationship, there’s an unconscious tendency to tune them out because you think you already know what they are going to say. It’s kind of like when you’ve traveled a certain route several times and no longer notice signposts and scenery.

But that’s a fallacy, because the sum of each person’s daily interactions and activities continually shapes his or her beliefs and perceptions, so none of us is the “same” as we were last month, last week—or even yesterday.

Social science researchers have repeatedly demonstrated the closeness-communication bias in experimental setups where they paired subjects first with friends or spouses and then with strangers. In each scenario, the researchers asked subjects to interpret what their partners were saying. While the subjects predicted they would more accurately understand, and be understood by, those with whom they had close relationships, they often understood them no better than strangers— and often worse.

“Accurately understanding another person often requires a second thought, to think, ‘Wait a minute, is this really what this person meant?’ and to check it,” said Nicholas Epley, a professor of Behavioral Science at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, who talked to Murphy for her story in the Times. “We just don’t do that as much with those we are close to because we assume we know what they are saying and that they know what we are saying.”

A prime example, he said, was when he gave his wife what he thought was the perfect gift: a behind-the-scenes tour of the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, during which she would get to feed the dolphins, beluga whales, and penguins. He thought she’d love it because she’d once expressed interest in swimming with dolphins. But she didn’t love it. At all. She was annoyed because she was pregnant at the time and suffering from morning sickness. Just the thought of touching a … fish made her want to vomit.

“I didn’t stop to think, ’Is this the right gift given where my wife is now in her life?’ I hadn’t really been listening well enough to know where she was,” Dr. Epley said.

Indeed, the Times article notes, the closeness-communication bias not only keeps us from listening to those we love; it also can keep us from allowing our loved ones to listen to us. It may explain why people in close relationships sometimes withhold information or keep secrets from one another.

You’ve probably experienced this phenomenon when someone close to you revealed something that you didn’t know while the two of you were talking to someone else. You might have even said, “I didn’t know that!”

The revelation most likely occurred because the additional person was listening differently than you previously had. Maybe that person showed more interest, asked the right questions, was less judgmental, or was less apt to interrupt. Again, it’s not that people in close relationships are purposefully neglectful or inattentive, it’s simply human nature to become complacent about what we know.

But what is love if not a willingness to listen to and be a part of another person’s evolving story? It turns out. Murphy says, that the best way for us to really understand those closest to us is to spend time with them, put down our phones. and actually listen to what they have to say.

Research contact: @nytimes

The Russians are coming: Lawmakers learn that the Kremlin is tampering with 2020 primaries and election

February 24, 2020

We knew it all along: Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia has mounted a U.S. campaign to get President Donald Trump re-elected. Now, the president is angry and alarmed—not by the Kremlin’s meddling—but by the very real possibility that Democrats may use the information against him, The New York Times reports.

The day after the February 13 briefing to Congress, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of National Intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said.

According to the Times, Trump was particularly irritated that Representative Adam Schiff (D- California), who recently served as the impeachment manager in the Senate, was at the briefing.

During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, the president’s allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that he had been “tough on Russia” and that he had strengthened European security.

Some intelligence officials viewed the briefing as a tactical error, saying the conclusions could have been delivered in a less pointed manner or left out entirely, to avoid angering Republicans. The intelligence official who delivered the briefing, Shelby Pierson, served as an aide to Maguire and has a reputation for speaking bluntly.

Although intelligence officials have previously told lawmakers that Russia’s interference campaign was continuing, the Times said that last week’s briefing included what appeared to be new information– that Russia intended to interfere with the 2020 Democratic primaries as well as the general election.

On Wednesday, the president announced that he was replacing Maguire with Richard Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and an aggressively vocal Trump supporter. And while some current and former officials speculated that the briefing might have played a role in that move, two administration officials said the timing was coincidental.

A spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and its election security office declined to comment to the Times. A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Research contact: @nytimes

He’s in: Bloomberg qualifies for Las Vegas debate

February 19, 2020

Former New York City three-term Mayor Michael Bloomberg  has qualified for Wednesday’s debate in Las Vegas—marking the first time that the big-spending billionaire will appear onstage alongside his Democratic presidential rivals.

And those rivals are certain to pile on him when they get the opportunity—defending their own hard-won positions in the 2020 race.

new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll. released on February 18, found that Bloomberg had garnered 19% support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents, ; putting him in second place behind Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, with 31%. That was a substantial surge since the group’s poll in December, when Mr. Bloomberg received only 4% support, The New York Times noted.

The survey was the fourth national qualifying poll since mid-January that showed Bloomberg with at least 10%t support—enough to earn him an invitation to the debate stage before the deadline of 11:59 p.m. (ET) on February 18.

Onstage, Bloomberg will face off against Sanders; Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; former Vice President Joe Biden.; and Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, the Times reported.  The debate will be hosted by NBC News, MSNBC, Telemundo, and The Nevada Independent.

In the new poll, Biden drew 15% of potential voters; Warren, 12%; Klobuchar, 9%; and Buttigieg, 8%. The poll surveyed 527 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents by phone between February 13 and February16; and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5  percentage points.

Bloomberg formally entered the race in November, nearly a year after most of the other candidates. He failed to make the cut for the past several debates in part because he is not accepting outside contributions for his campaign, the Times reported.

But new rules announced by the Democratic National Committee opened the door to his participation, as they enabled candidates to qualify for the Las Vegas debate, as well as the one that will take place on February 25 in Charleston, South Carolina, without meeting a donor threshold.

Tom Steyer, the other billionaire seeking the Democratic nomination, has participated in the five most recent debates, but he is unlikely to be onstage in Las Vegas. He would need to receive 10% support in four national qualifying polls, or 12% in two polls taken in Nevada or South Carolina, before the deadline.

Research contact: @nytimespolitics

Trump tied Ukraine military aid to political inquiries on Bidens, Bolton book says

January 28, 2020

Someone has leaked the manuscript of former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s new tell-all book—and the revelations are damaging to President Donald Trump’s defense, as the Senate impeachment inquiry goes into its second week.

Indeed, according to the unpublished manuscript, the president told Bolton in August—just about one month before the adviser’s resignation—that “he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in military assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens,” The New York Times reports.

The president’s statement, as described by Bolton, makes it crystal clear that any release of military aid was contingent on Ukraine announcing investigations into Trump’s political enemies—including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

According to the Times, Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

Multiple people told the news outlet about Bolton’s personal, written account of the Ukraine affair. The book presents an outline of what the former advsier might testify to, if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said.

Or not: The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.

Just after midnight on Monday, January 27, the president denied telling Bolton that the aid was tied to investigations. “If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book,” he wrote on Twitter, reprising his argument that the Ukrainians themselves felt “no pressure” and falsely asserting that the aid was released ahead of schedule.

Over dozens of pages, Bolton described how the Ukraine affair unfolded over several months until he departed the White House in September. He described not only the president’s private disparagement of Ukraine but also new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement.

For example, the Times reported, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani that the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt.

As for Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, he was present for at least one phone call durng which the president and Giuliani discussed the ambassador, Bolton wrote. Mulvaney has told associates he would always step away when the president spoke with his lawyer to protect their attorney-client privilege.

Bolton’s lawyer blamed the White House for the disclosure of the book’s contents, the Times said. “It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times article published today that the pre-publication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript,” the lawyer, Charles Cooper, said Sunday night.

The White House has ordered Bolton and other key officials with firsthand knowledge of the president’s dealings not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. Bolton said in a statement this month that he would testify if subpoenaed.

Research contact: @nytimes

Ukraine announces investigation into Trump flunkies amid reports of surveillance of Yovanovitch

January 20, 2020\

Ukraine finally has announced an investigation, but it has nothing to do with Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden or his son Hunter. Rather, the small eastern European nation has opened a criminal investigation into allies of President Donald Trump, following reports that they had U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch under surveillance while she was stationed in Kyiv, the Ukrainian government said on January 16.

According to a report by The New York Times, “The move was a remarkable departure from past practice for the new government of President Volodymyr Zelensky, which has tried hard to avoid any hint of partisanship in its dealings with Washington.”

The current situation has heightened those sensitivities, with Ukraine caught in the middle of the conflict between Democrats and Republicans over the impeachment of Trump for his pressure campaign on Ukraine.

But the recent release of documents in Washington has prompted a change of course, the Times notes. On Tuesday, just before the president’s impeachment trial in the Senate was scheduled to begin, House Democrats published text messages to and from Lev Parnas —who managed the president’s campaign of coercion on the ground in Ukraine for Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer. The texts pointed directly to the surveillance of Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch.

The Internal Affairs Ministry of Ukraine said in a statement released last Thursday that “the published messages contain facts of possible violations of Ukrainian law and of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, which protect the rights of diplomats on the territory of another state.”

Ukraine “cannot ignore such illegal activities” on its territory, the statement said, adding that the national police had started criminal proceedings after analyzing the new material.

“Our goal is to investigate whether there were any violations of Ukrainian and international laws,” the ministry said in the statement. “Or maybe it was just bravado and fake conversation between two U.S. citizens.”

However, Ukrainian law and international obligations to protect the rights of diplomats serving on its territory forced the country to respond, the statement said. It called on the F.B.I. to provide all available “information and materials” related to people “who may be involved in a possible criminal offense.”

Arsen Avakov, Ukraine’s interior minister, said the United States should take part in the investigation.

“Ukraine expects the United States of America to respond promptly and looks forward to cooperation,” the Interior Ministry’s statement said.

Research contact: @nytimes

Republicans abandon outright dismissal of impeachment charges

January 15, 2020

Despite President Donald Trump’s best efforts to attain an immediate dismissal of both articles of impeachment, the stage has been set in the U.S. Capitol for a tribunal—and the leading players for the House and the Senate will be chosen this week.

Indeed, according to a report by The New York Times , rank-and-file senators and party leaders made clear on Monday, January 13, that even if they wanted to pursue dismissal of the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, the votes simply were not there to succeed—at least not at the outset of the trial.

Senate Republicans indicated that they would not seek to summarily dismiss the impeachment charges against President Trump, proceeding instead to a trial with arguments and the possibility of calling witnesses that could begin as soon as Wednesday, the Times said.

Dismissal was always a long shot given Republicans’ narrow control of the Senate, but it was the subject of renewed discussion after Trump said on Sunday that he liked the idea put forward by some conservatives as a way to deny the House’s case the legitimacy of a trial.

 “Our members generally are not interested in a motion to dismiss,” Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a top Republican leader, told the Times. “They think both sides need to be heard. They believe the president needs to be heard for the first time in a fair setting.”

In the House on Monday, Democrats leaving meetings with Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated that the chamber was most likely to vote on Wednesday to name lawmakers to prosecute the case and to send its two impeachment charges to the Senate.

Behind the scenes, aides in the House and Senate were carefully choreographing the next steps, and some Democrats in the House cautioned that a vote could still slip to Thursday, as the Senate seeks to deal with a pending War Powers Resolution and President Trump’s new trade agreement with Canada and Mexico.

In any case, a trial would not be expected to start in earnest, with opening oral arguments, until next week.

As the trial has approached, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, has seemed increasingly keen to keep it as tightly controlled and speedy as possible. According to the Times, “He is wary of what could happen if Democrats succeed in picking off moderate Republican senators to form a majority able to call witnesses and prolong the proceeding.”

But he also wants to ensure that those same moderate senators—several of whom are up this fall for re-election in swing states—can credibly claim to voters that they took their constitutional duties seriously.

However, on Twitter, the president warned that holding a full trial “gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have.”

Research contact: @nytimes

Trump on track to become third U.S. president to be impeached

December 18, 2019

President Donald Trump has proven himself to be no match for Speaker Nancy Pelosi. On Wednesday, he faced an odds-on impeachment vote in the House, where Democrats enjoy a 36-seat majority, Reuters reported.

In voting for his impeachment, the House would make Trump the third president in U.S. history to be accused of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” as described in the Constitution—and declared guilty by official ballot.

Trump faces one charge of abusing his power by extorting Ukraine to investigate Biden, a leading Democratic contender to oppose him in the 2020 U.S. presidential election; and one of obstructing Congress’ investigation into the matter, Reuters said.

The president has denied wrongdoing and accused Democrats of a baseless and politically-motivated bid to oust him from power.

In a six-page letter delivered to Pelosi on the eve of the impeachment vote, Trump tried to turn the tables on the Democrats: “You are the ones interfering in America’s elections,” he wrote. “You are the ones subverting America’s Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish, personal political, and partisan gain.”

A majority vote in the House would set the stage for a trial in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell already has vowed to follow the lead of the president and the White House counsel.

Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats in the Senate, where they appear likely to prevail in any trial against Trump, which would require a two-thirds majority of those present to remove him from office, Reuters noted.

Seeking to shape any trial, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called on Sunday for testimony from the Trump aides who allegedly viewed his criminal actions personally: White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, Mulvaney aide Robert Blair, and OMB official Michael Duffey.

“I hope we can come to an agreement about a fair trial,” Schumer told MSNBC in an interview Chris Hayes.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 23-17 on December 13, along party lines, to approve the two articles of impeachment against Trump and to send the matter to the full chamber. Late on Sunday, the panel issued its full report detailing the case against him.

In a tweet on Monday, White House spokesperson Stephanie Grisham said Schumer’s comments seeking fairness were “laughable” after the release of the 658-page report “in the middle of the night. Thankfully the people of this country continue to see the partisan sham that this is.”

Research contact: @Reuters

We’re not pulling your leg: Marathon running may be good for your knees

December 18, 2019

It’s counter-intuitive, but a team of researchers from the United Kingdom and Switzerland has established that marathon training and racing actually may be good for our knees, The New York Times reports.

myth-toppling new study of novice, midlife runners suggests that taking up distance running rebuilds the health of certain essential components of middle-aged knees, even if the joints start off somewhat tattered and worn.

But the results also contain a caution: Marathon mileage could erode one vulnerable area within the knee, the study finds, if runners are not careful.

According to the Times’ report, we shouldn’t be so surprised by the news. Most past experiments have found that running generally is not harmful for healthy knees. In one much-cited study, elderly runners developed knee arthritis at lower rates than sedentary people. And in another, more recent study, young people’s knees grew less inflamed after a run than after a long stretch of sitting.

 

But most of this science has focused on whether running actively harms knees—not whether it might somehow refurbish and spiff up joints beginning to show signs of wear and tear.

That question became personal in 2012 for Dr. Alister Hart, an orthopedic surgeon and research professor at University College London and the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital in the United Kingdom, who oversaw the new study. That year, he says, he ran his first marathon.

 “For two weeks afterward, I needed a handrail to do stairs,” he says. “My quads were agony. My hip- and knee-replacement colleagues told me that I was mad.”

He, too, was a bit concerned about his knees—and decided that it would be a service to all runners to look closely at what marathon training might be doing to those joints. So, for the new study, which was published in October in BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, he and his research associate Laura Maria Horga and other colleagues turned to the entry rolls of an upcoming London Marathon.

There, they identified and contacted middle-aged entrants who had listed themselves as first-time marathon runners. They wound up with more than 80 novice racers, most in their mid-40s and few of whom had run or exercised much in the past, the Times notes.

The researchers asked these men and women about their knees. At this point, the marathon was still six months distant, and their joints were those of middle-aged adults and not yet those of runners. All of the soon-to-be marathoners responded that the joints were in good shape, with no creaks or pains.

The researchers then gathered the volunteers at a university facility and scanned everyone’s knees, using a sophisticated, high-resolution type of M.R.I. that reveals even minor damage in the joint’s tissues.

A few months later, the men and women began the same, four-month marathon-training program. Eventually, 71 of them finished the race, in an average time of 5 hours and 20 minutes. Two weeks later, they returned to the lab to have their knees re-scanned.

The scientists then compared their hundreds of before-and-after scans and turned up some surprises. For one, while the participants had reported at the start of the study that their knees felt fine, many, in fact, harbored damage. About half of the pre-training knees contained frayed or torn cartilage, and others showed lesions in the joint’s bone marrow. Similar patterns of tears and lesions can signal incipient bone erosion and arthritis, the researchers knew.

The post-race scans held other, new and unexpected results. “I expected to see additional damage” in runners’ knees, Dr. Hart said.

Instead, many of the existing bone-marrow lesions had shrunk, as had some of the damage in the runners’ cartilage. At the same time, some racers had developed new tears and strains in the cartilage and other tissues at the front of their knees, around the kneecap, a part of the joint known to be stressed during running. That area also, though, tends to be less prone to arthritis than other portions of the knee.

Over all, “the main weight-bearing knee compartments showed beneficial effects from the marathon,” says Dr. Horga, meaning that, in general, the knees were healthier.

Just how running remade the marathoners’ knees remains uncertain, she says, but it most likely involved strengthening of the muscles surrounding the joint, helping to stabilize it and reduce or even reverse tissue damage there. Meanwhile, the unfamiliar pounding of the running focused large forces on the kneecap area, overtaxing it.

Of course, this study was short-term and focused on middle-aged marathon newcomers with no history of knee problems. Whether running would be constructive for the knees of older runners or people whose joints ache is not certain.

In addition, the scientists do not know if changes in knee health linger or what the effects are on other joints, such as the hips. They are planning a six-month follow-up study of their participants’ knees and a study of hips to help answer those questions, the Times reports.. The results will be posted at their website, runningforscience.org.

Research contact: @nytimes

George Conway and other conservative Republicans launch super PAC to block Trump’s reelection

December 18, 2019

Did he get permission from Kellyanne? We doubt it. George Conway—a lawyer, a prominent GOP donor, and the husband one of President Donald Trump’s highest-profile spokespersons—is leading a group of conservative Republicans who are launching a super PAC aimed at stopping Trump from winning reelection, The Hill reports.

The Lincoln Project represents the first formal operation for the so-called “Never Trump” movementthe Associated Press also reported on December 17.

Organizers already have gotten over $1 million in fundraising commitments and hope for more—all to be spent on anti-Trump advertising in the build-up to the 2020 election.

The group announced the launch of the super PAC in a New York Times op-ed (“We Are Republicans, and We Want Trump Defeated”) published Tuesday, authored by Conway, former Republican operative Steve Schmidt, former  adviser to Ohio Governor John Kasich (R) John Weaver, and Republican strategist Rick Wilson.

This effort transcends partisanship and is dedicated to nothing less than preservation of the principles that so many have fought for, on battlefields far from home and within their own communities,” read the op-ed in the Times.

The authors wrote that their effort over the next 11 months will be to defeat Trump “and Trumpism at the ballot box and to elect those patriots who will hold the line.”

“We do not undertake this task lightly, nor from ideological preference,” the authors noted, adding, “We have been, and remain, broadly conservative (or classically liberal) in our politics and outlooks,” they wrote. “Our many policy differences with national Democrats remain, but our shared fidelity to the Constitution dictates a common effort.”

The group reportedly plans to target disenfranchised Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents in an effort to hinder Trump’s reelection and to defeat Trump-aligned GOP Senate candidates in key 2020 battleground states, including Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Maine and possibly Kansas and Kentucky.

The group’s ads are expected to start airing early next year.

Research contact: @thehill