Contact Me By Email


What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.


This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.

Wednesday, December 02, 2020

'A Fool': MAGA Fans Turn On Barr After Debunking Trump's Fraud | The Bea...

Rick Wilson: Playing With Trump And His ‘Sick Game’ Is ‘Enormously Corro...

Covid-19 Live Updates: C.D.C. Warns Against Holiday Travel - The New York Times

"The Centers for Disease Control head warned that this winter may be the “most difficult time” in U.S. public health history. The U.K. became the first country to approve Pfizer’s vaccine, paving the way for mass inoculations."

Covid-19 Live Updates: C.D.C. Warns Against Holiday Travel - The New York Times

"It Has to Stop" Georgia Republican election official blasts Trump,, Sen...

‘It Has to Stop’: Georgia Election Official Lashes Trump

‘It Has to Stop’: Georgia Election Official Lashes Trump

Opinion | Why Are Children Dying of the Flu in U.S. Detention?

Opinion | Why Are Children Dying of the Flu in U.S. Detention?

Tuesday, December 01, 2020

Both Republican candidates in Georgia runoffs face questions about stock trades

Both Republican candidates in Georgia runoffs face questions about stock trades

Legal Bombshell: DOJ Investigating 'Bribery-For-Pardon' Scheme | The Bea...

CDC panel says health care workers, nursing home residents should be fir...

Georgia election official condemns threats of violence, slams Trump, GOP for not speaking out

Georgia election official condemns threats of violence, slams Trump, GOP for not speaking out

Trump Has Discussed With Advisers Pardons for His 3 Eldest Children and Giuliani - The New York Times

Rudolph W. Giuliani, who is promoting baseless claims of widespread election fraud, talked about a pardon with President Trump as recently as last week.

A pardon for Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer, is certain to prompt accusations that Mr. Trump has used his power to obstruct investigations and insulate himself and his allies. Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times
A pardon for Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer, is certain to prompt accusations that Mr. Trump has used his power to obstruct investigations and insulate himself and his allies. Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times

President Trump has discussed with advisers whether to grant pre-emptive pardons to his children, to his son-in-law and to his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, and talked with Mr. Giuliani about pardoning him as recently as last week, according to two people briefed on the matter.

Mr. Trump has told others that he is concerned that a Biden Justice Department might seek retribution against the president by targeting the oldest three of his five children — Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump — as well as Ms. Trump’s husband, Jared Kushner, a White House senior adviser.

Donald Trump Jr. had been under investigation by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, for contacts that the younger Mr. Trump had had with Russians offering damaging information on Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign, but he was never charged. Mr. Kushner provided false information to federal authorities about his contacts with foreigners for his security clearance, but was given one anyway by the president.

The nature of Mr. Trump’s concern about any potential criminal exposure of Eric Trump or Ivanka Trump is unclear, although an investigation by the Manhattan district attorney into the Trump Organization has expanded to include tax write-offs on millions of dollars in consulting fees by the company, some of which appear to have gone to Ms. Trump.

Presidential pardons, however, do not provide protection against state or local crimes.

Mr. Giuliani’s potential criminal exposure is also unclear, although he was under investigation as recently as this summer by federal prosecutors in Manhattan for his business dealings in Ukraine and his role in ousting the American ambassador there. The plot was at the heart of the impeachment of Mr. Trump.

The speculation about pardon activity at the White House is churning furiously, underscoring how much the Trump administration has been dominated by investigations and criminal prosecutions of people in the president’s orbit. Mr. Trump himself was singled out by federal prosecutors as “Individual 1” in a court filing in the case that sent Michael D. Cohen, his former lawyer and fixer, to prison.

The discussions between Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani occurred as the former New York mayor has become one of the loudest voices pushing baseless claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, which Mr. Trump still proclaims publicly that he won. Many of Mr. Trump’s longtime aides have refused to do the president’s bidding to try to overturn an election that President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. won by nearly seven million votes. But Mr. Giuliani has repeatedly thrust himself into the spotlight to cast doubt on the results, which has ingratiated him with the president.

ABC News reported earlier on Tuesday that Mr. Trump was considering pardoning family members.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Trump did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Mr. Giuliani did not respond to a message seeking comment, but after a version of this article was published online, he attacked it on Twitter and said it was false.

Christianné L. Allen, Mr. Giuliani’s spokeswoman, said Mr. Giuliani “cannot comment on any discussions that he has with his client.”

And Mr. Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello, said, “He’s not concerned about this investigation because he didn’t do anything wrong, and that’s been our position from Day 1.”

The Fox News host and Trump ally Sean Hannity said on Monday that given the animosity from Democrats directed at Mr. Trump, the president should consider pardoning his entire family. “If Biden ever became president, I’d tell Trump pardon yourself and pardon your family,” Mr. Hannity told his viewers.

Mr. Trump is an avid consumer of Fox News, particularly Mr. Hannity’s show.

Such a broad pardon pre-empting any charge or conviction is highly unusual but does have precedent. In the most famous example, President Gerald R. Ford pardoned Richard M. Nixon for all of his actions as president. President George Washington pardoned plotters of the Whiskey Rebellion, shielding them from treason prosecutions. And President Jimmy Carter pardoned thousands of American men who illegally avoided the draft for the Vietnam War.

Mr. Trump has wielded his clemency powers liberally in cases that resonate with him personally or for people who have a direct line to him through friends or family, while thousands of other cases await his review.

A pardon for Mr. Giuliani is certain to prompt accusations that Mr. Trump has used his pardon power to obstruct investigations and insulate himself and his allies. Andrew A. Weissmann, a top prosecutor for Mr. Mueller, has said that Mr. Trump’s dangling of pardons for his allies impeded their work.

In July, the president commuted the sentence of his longtime adviser Roger J. Stone Jr., who had refused to cooperate with the special counsel’s investigators and was eventually convicted of seven felonies. Last week, Mr. Trump pardoned his former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, who had backed out of his cooperation agreement with the special counsel’s office for “any and all possible offenses” beyond the charge he had faced of lying to federal investigators.

The Flynn pardon raised expectations that Mr. Trump would bestow clemency on other associates — like his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who refused to discuss matters from the 2016 election with prosecutors — in his final weeks in office.

Mr. Giuliani has asked Mr. Trump’s campaign to pay him $20,000 a day for his work on trying to overturn the election, a figure that would make him among the most highly paid lawyers in the world. The staggering sum has stirred opposition among Mr. Trump’s aides who worry that Mr. Giuliani has perpetuated the claims of election fraud in hopes of making as much money as possible.

Mr. Giuliani has expressed concern that any federal investigations of his conduct that appear to have been dormant under the Trump administration could be revived in a Biden administration, according to people who have spoken to him.

Legal experts say that if Mr. Trump wants to fully protect Mr. Giuliani from prosecution after he leaves office, the president would most likely have to detail what crimes he believed Mr. Giuliani had committed in the language of the pardon.

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have since 2019 been investigating the role of Mr. Giuliani and two other associates in a wide-ranging pressure campaign directed at pushing the Ukrainian government to investigate Mr. Trump’s rivals, namely Mr. Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

The two Giuliani associates — Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman — were arrested in October 2019 as they prepared to board a flight from Washington to Frankfurt with one-way tickets. They were charged with violating campaign finance laws as part of a complex scheme to undermine the former American ambassador in Ukraine, Marie L. Yovanovitch, who Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump believed should have been doing more to pressure the Ukrainians.

Prosecutors in Manhattan continued to investigate Mr. Giuliani’s role in the scheme over the past year, focusing on whether he was, in pushing to oust Ms. Yovanovitch, essentially double dipping: working not only for Mr. Trump but also for Ukrainian officials who wanted the ambassador gone for their own reasons, according to people briefed on the matter.

It is a federal crime to try to influence the United States government at the request or direction of a foreign official without disclosing their involvement. Mr. Giuliani has said that he did nothing wrong and that he did not register as a foreign agent because he was acting on behalf of Mr. Trump, not any Ukrainians.

Even as Mr. Trump maintains that the election was stolen and files lawsuits aimed at delaying its certification, his White House is preparing for the final stages of his presidency. The end of any administration typically prompts a wave of pardons, particularly when a term has been engulfed in controversy like Mr. Trump’s, in which several people close to him became ensnared in federal investigations.

“The pardon power has been used by many presidents in politically self-serving ways, whether it was George H.W. Bush or Clinton,” said Jack L. Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, citing how Mr. Bush pardoned six of his associates — including the former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger — for their role in the Iran-contra affair.

“Politically, a pardon of Giuliani would be explosive,” Mr. Goldsmith added, “but pardoning pals has been done before.”

Under previous administrations, presidents have largely granted pardons after they have gone through a formal review process at the Justice Department, where lawyers examined the convictions, discussed the ramifications of the potential pardon with prosecutors and then provided the White House with recommendations on how to proceed. On several occasions, Mr. Trump has gone against the Justice Department’s recommendations and the advice of his own White House advisers, granting pardons to political allies and celebrities.

When presidents have deviated from that process, scandals have occasionally occurred, especially on pardons in the final days of the administration. On the final day of Bill Clinton’s presidency, he granted a pardon to Marc Rich, a wealthy financier and longtime Democratic donor who was considered a fugitive as he had fled the United States to avoid tax charges.

Prosecutors in Manhattan investigated whether the pardon had been part of a quid pro quo, but no one was ever charged. At the time, Mr. Giuliani, who had helped bring criminal charges against Mr. Rich years earlier as a federal prosecutor, was deeply critical of the move, calling it “a disgrace” and declaring it “a midnight pardon.”

No president has tried to grant someone a pardon for crimes they have not yet committed — essentially a prospective get-out-of-jail-free card — and legal experts say it is unlikely to hold any weight. In the case of Donald Trump Jr., Mr. Mueller’s investigation examined questions of whether his contacts during the 2016 election with WikiLeaks and Russians offering dirt on Mrs. Clinton amounted to campaign finance violations. Donald Trump Jr. was never interviewed by the special counsel’s office and was never charged.

In the case of Mr. Kushner, he omitted several significant contacts with foreigners when he filled out a form for his White House security clearance, including ones with the Russians offering damaging information on Mrs. Clinton during the campaign. Under federal law it is a crime to provide inaccurate or incomplete information on the background check documents for security clearances.

In 2018, the White House counsel and chief of staff recommended that Mr. Kushner not receive a Top Secret security clearance because of issues that had been discovered during his background check. Over the objections of Mr. Trump’s aides, the president unilaterally granted Mr. Kushner the clearance.

Ben Protess contributed reporting."

Trump Has Discussed With Advisers Pardons for His 3 Eldest Children and Giuliani - The New York Times

Redacted, Court filing by Judge exposing lobbying the White House for a Presidential Pardon and a bribery scheme. No individuals were revealed because of the redaction. This is a ticking bomb.


 

U.S. prosecutors investigating potential scheme to pay bribe for Trump pardon | Reuters


"U.S. prosecutors investigating potential scheme to pay bribe for Trump pardon


























By Jan Wolfe

"U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on Tuesday released a heavily redacted order that described what she called a “bribery-for-pardon” investigation.

About half of the 18-page document was blacked out, with the publicly available version providing few details of the alleged scheme, and naming none of the people potentially involved.

According to the order unsealed by Howell, federal prosecutors in Washington said they had obtained evidence of a bribery scheme in which someone “would offer a substantial political contribution in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve of sentence.”

The Justice Department had to ask Howell’s permission to view certain electronic communications between a lawyer and clients, who were not identified. Howell granted the request in August, saying attorney-client privilege did not apply in that instance.

Prosecutors had said they planned to “confront” three unnamed individuals with the communications and finish their investigation.

Presidents enjoy wide latitude under the U.S. Constitution in pardoning people convicted of federal crimes. President Donald Trump last week pardoned his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who had twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

That was the first of what is expected to be a string of pardons in Trump’s final weeks in the White House."

U.S. prosecutors investigating potential scheme to pay bribe for Trump pardon | Reuters

Presidential Transition Live Updates: Lawmakers Unveil Stimulus Package - The New York Times

Barr says Justice Dept. hasn’t uncovered fraud that could have tipped the election, and McConnell refers to ‘new administration.’

Attorney General William P. Barr’s statements undercut President Trump’s claim of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.
Credit...Al Drago for The New York Times

"Attorney General William P. Barr said Tuesday that the Justice Department has not uncovered voting fraud at a scale that could have affected the results of the presidential election, reaffirming Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s win despite President Trump’s groundless claims that he was defrauded.

Mr. Barr’s comments, in an interview with The Associated Press, were a prominent repudiation of Mr. Trump’s baseless assertions and came days after the president implied that the Justice Department and the F.B.I. may have played a role in an election fraud.

“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” Mr. Barr said.

Mr. Barr’s comments came as another Trump ally signaled he was ready to move on after a surreal month of lawsuits, conspiracy theories and denials by the president of a loss that has proved durable and decisive.

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, who has refused to recognize Mr. Trump’s election loss, on Tuesday moved closer to overtly accepting the reality that Mr. Biden would be in the White House next year, while discussing the prospects for more pandemic stimulus in 2021.

“After the first of the year, there is likely to be a discussion about some additional package of some size next year, depending upon what the new administration wants to pursue,” Mr. McConnell said at a news conference.

Taken together, Mr. Barr’s direct declaration and Mr. McConnell’s indirect reference to Mr. Biden’s new administration represent a major, if not unexpected, blow to the president’s postelection effort to change the results from two men whom he has often relied on for political cover.

Moments after Mr. Barr’s comments were made public, Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, emailed a statement on campaign letterhead, claiming — again without evidence — that he had found “ample” proof of national voter fraud sufficient to swing the election to Mr. Biden.

“With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, his opinion appears to be without any knowledge or investigation of the substantial irregularities and evidence of systemic fraud,” wrote Mr. Giuliani late Tuesday.

Mr. Barr was seen entering the White House grounds Tuesday afternoon. A department spokesman said he was there for previously scheduled appointments that did not include a meeting with the president.

Amid the fallout from Mr. Barr’s statements about the election, the Justice Department also announced that he had given extra protection to the federal prosecutor examining the origins of the investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Mr. Barr appointed the prosecutor, John H. Durham, as a special counsel, a move that makes it more difficult for the Biden administration to fire him.

Mr. Durham has been conducting the investigation for a year and a half, and Mr. Trump and his allies had been banking on him uncovering wrongdoing by Obama-era F.B.I. officials to help the president’s political fortunes in the lead up to last month’s election. But Mr. Durham has charged only one person, an F.B.I. lawyer who pleaded guilty to doctoring an email.


Presidential Transition Live Updates: Lawmakers Unveil Stimulus Package - The New York Times

Why coronavirus reinfections are happening






















"PUBLISHED DECEMBER 1, 2020

PEOPLE CAN CATCH COVID-19 twice. That’s the emerging consensus among health experts who are learning more about the possibility that those who’ve recovered from the coronavirus can get it again. So far, the phenomenon doesn't appear to be widespread—with a few hundred reinfection cases reported worldwide—yet those numbers are likely to expand as the pandemic continues.

Identifying reinfections is tricky: Not only does it take a while for subsequent bouts to show up, health departments must make sure that alleged cases really are reinfections because coronavirus residue can linger for weeks. For example, University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban made headlines just before Thanksgiving when he tested positive for a second time. But it is unclear if he was truly reinfected because of a blindspot in how officials screened for cases during his first episode back in October.

Because COVID-19 reinfections are still relatively rare, they can’t be blamed for the ongoing surges. Still, these incidents could be unwelcome news for coronavirus veterans who have been hoping their experience might have given them a so-called immunity passport. Such accounts show that recovering from the SARS-CoV2 coronavirus isn’t an excuse to shed masks and flout social-distancing rules while the pandemic is in full swing. In October, an 89-year-old Dutch woman was the first documented death of someone who had contracted the coronavirus a second time.

Immunity may wane over time—just like it does with other kinds of coronaviruses—and getting sick may even prime some people to suffer worse symptoms if they catch the virus a second time.

Take this case study, published in October in The Lancet: In early April, a 25-year-old Nevada man showed up to a community testing center complaining of a sore throat, cough, headache, and nausea. Sure enough, he tested positive for COVID-19, and he went home to isolate. In the weeks that followed, two more tests confirmed he had fully recovered. Yet by the end of May, the coronavirus had struck again. This time, he came down with an even worse case that was marked by shortness of breath and required him to go to the emergency room for oxygen.

Other countries have also reported reinfection rates that suggest the true global toll is unknown but potentially dangerous. Last month, Sweden launched an investigation into 150 cases. In Brazil, scientists are tracking 95 cases. And Mexico claimed to have 258 reinfection cases as of mid-October—nearly 15 percent of which were severe, and 4 percent were fatal. The nation’s datasets show that people who suffered from serious first cases were more likely to be hospitalized with subsequent infections.


“The takeaway is that reinfection is certainly possible,” says Richard Tillett, a biostatistician at the Nevada Institute of Personalized Medicine at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and lead author of the case study. “It seems uncommon and maybe even rare. But it’s real and can happen.”

HISTORY & CULTURE

One in six Americans could go hungry in 2020 as pandemic persists
Why spotting reinfection is harder
Reinfections are hard to document because researchers can’t simply rely on patients' accounts of return symptoms or on routine COVID-19 tests involving polymerase chain reaction (PCR). They need stronger genetic proof, which calls for different technologies.

A new mutation appears in SARS-CoV-2 every 15 days, on average. So far, those natural changes are not so extensive that they alter the nature or potency of the coronavirus, aka it isn’t a new strain. But they can provide evidence that the patient’s second bout wasn’t the same as the original infection.

“It’s not that patients get re-infected from a new strain,” says Nathan Grubaugh, assistant professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Connecticut. Such sequencing data, he says, simply offers a “genetic signature” to show if the recurrence of the disease stems from a new infection.

That’s how the Nevada team was convinced that their patient didn’t simply suffer from a persistent, clandestine infection that suddenly had grown worse. “Our argument is that he caught it from a second source because we observed six different mutations,” says Tillett.

DID NICK SABAN CATCH CORONAVIRUS TWICE?

Based on public information, it’s unclear if Nick Saban, Alabama’s football coach, has been reinfected by the coronavirus.
No genetic sequencing details have been released, and some mystery surrounds his first diagnosis, which he described as asymptomatic.

National Geographic contacted the University of Alabama for comment but received no reply.
Under his football conference’s guidelines, a symptom-free case can get tested again within a day, the first step in a bid to end isolation early.

If that result is negative along with two additional PCR tests conducted 24 hours apart, then the original diagnosis is deemed a “false positive” and the person can return to work.
Not only does this practice defy state guidance, it isn’t typically how PCR results are confirmed.

False positives are also next to impossible when a PCR test is performed correctly.
Moreover, viral levels decline over time, making a negative result on subsequent tests more likely.

Using the combination of patient histories and genetic sequencing is the bona fide way to track reinfections; they can’t be gleaned by surges measured with standard testing. To do this going forward, health labs will need to unify their practices and store specimens for the long term. A recent survey in Qatar identified 243 potential reinfections based on case history, but only four had enough genetic material to be confirmed.

This need prompted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in late October to establish new “gold standard” guidelines. (Saban’s first case happened before this guidance arrived.)

Local health officials who learn of alleged repeat cases are now encouraged to send specimens to a testing lab that is equipped with genetic sequencing capacity, as well as to carefully document symptoms and the interval between initial infection and a suspected reinfection.

That time interval is particularly critical because it could help answer the question: How long will our immunity last against SARS-CoV-2?

A kinder COVID-19 the second time around?
Much of society’s return to normalcy hinges on the duration and strength of our COVID-19 immunity. Along with determining how people recover from the disease, it will dictate how often a vaccine needs to be taken to control the pandemic, and even whether social distancing will endure.

But it takes time to prove if immunity to any disease is durable. For early clues to how COVID-19 might behave, health experts tried to divine the risk of reinfection by looking at other human coronaviruses. For example, one study of four seasonal coronaviruses published in September in Nature Medicine found that reinfections could occur as soon as six or nine months later, but were more likely to be observed at 12 months. But a body’s response to SARS-CoV-2 is unlike that of seasonal viruses because humans and those latter germs have had time to adapt to each other.

Grubaugh generally attributes the phenomenon of waning immunity to patients’ lack of antibodies for a particular virus. These proteins are produced in the immune system in response to an infection. They help stifle the germ as it invades and are widely believed to ward off future attacks.

Evidence suggests that 95 percent of people produce antibodies two weeks after the COVID-19’s onset. Grubaugh says it’s possible SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could fade over time and you could become susceptible again, but he doesn’t expect that to happen for years or decades. More likely is that some people don’t develop a foolproof antibody response in the first place, he says.

The latter appears to be what happened to a 33-year-old Hong Kong man who was first sick in March and then developed an asymptomatic case in August. Even though he didn’t exhibit the classic cough, fever, or headache the second time, he still became a potential spreader. Grubaugh suspects most reinfections at the moment are due to a person’s immune system being compromised.

What makes the reinfection story even more mystifying is that such accounts come at a time when emerging research suggests immunity to COVID-19 might actually be robust. Some preliminary studies do show that antibody levels drop within a couple months after SARS-CoV-2 infections, but others argue that these waning numbers don’t mean a loss of protection.

The immunity symphony
In fact, fading antibodies may be a sign of a normal and healthy immune response. In November, a British study published as a preprint (meaning that it was not peer reviewed) reported that an initial flood of antibodies soon after infection corresponded with protection for six months—even if the antibody levels faded over time. The study documented only three asymptomatic reinfections among 1,246 health-care workers who had detectable antibodies early on.


That’s because antibody levels don’t reveal the full story of a person’s ability to fight off future infections, says S. Vincent Rajkumar, an oncologist and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who studies immunity.

Think of the human immune system as an orchestra, and among its versatile players are B cells and T cells. When SARS-CoV-2 invades, the body’s opening movement is frantic. Some B cells rev up swiftly, producing that first burst of antibodies within a week or two. Simultaneously, a group of T cells—known as killers—hunts down any other cell infected by the coronavirus and gets it to self-destruct. A separate type of T cell—known as helpers—guides both of these crisis responses. If any part loses the harmony, it can throw off the entire production and actually cause more damage rather than less.

While all of this is happening, the immune system is also learning. A fraction of these B cells and T cells get stored away as so-called memory cells. After recovery, the memory cells continue to work behind the scenes to prevent reinfections.

“The cells that made those antibodies will still be around. It will be difficult for a new infection to cause the same amount of harm as the first one. The body already knows how to respond,” Rajkumar says.

This is why scientists were excited in July when a research paper showed that memory T cells were still detectable years after people recovered from the 2002-2003 SARS coronavirus, a close cousin of this year’s plague.

Now, the latest evidence suggests that both B cells and T cells generated from COVID-19 infections are also likely to stick around for the long run. One preprint, published November 16, began to sketch out the lifespans for these critical components of the immune system among 185 coronavirus patients. It showed that memory B cells remained widely abundant after six months, while memory T cells had been reduced, but only by half. Another study from November found that a hundred health-care workers who contracted the coronavirus in the spring and showed mild or few symptoms—and didn’t produce many antibodies to begin with—still had robust T cells six months later.

What’s unknown is how these B cells and T cells will act if the body is re-exposed to the coronavirus. Will they produce an inflammatory response that somehow leads to a worse case later with more severe symptoms? Or will they blunt the outcome and yield the mild reinfections witnessed in some early reports?

Even if recovered COVID-19 patients are counting on a less painful second episode, they shouldn’t toss aside their masks.

They could still catch the virus and pass it to others, who might then become sick.
If the trajectories of cold-causing coronaviruses are any reassurance, getting COVID-19 again won’t be nearly as miserable the second time for most people, says Rajkumar. That means the Hong Kong case would be the norm, while the Nevada man who developed a more severe case after being re-infected might not be typical.

For now, there isn’t enough long-term research to know if B cells and T cells activated by the cutting-edge mRNA vaccines on the verge of approval will offer lasting protection, though a recent, two-month study in mice suggests that the answer could be “yes.”

In the meantime, even if recovered COVID-19 patients are counting on a less painful second episode, they shouldn’t toss aside their masks. They could still catch the virus and pass it to others, who might then become sick.

“You might get re-infected, and your symptoms might be so mild that you don’t know about it,” says Rajkumar, adding that mask-wearing should continue until the world has reached herd immunity. “It’s wise to wear a mask even if you’ve had COVID-19 out of concern for others.”

Barr says Justice Department found no evidence of fraud that would change election outcome

Barr says Justice Department found no evidence of fraud that would change election outcome

Real Lawyer Reacts To the Trial of the Chicago 7

Presidential Transition: Giuliani Said to Have Discussed Pardon With Trump - The New York Times









































No!

"Giuliani is said to have discussed a possible pardon with Trump.
Biden and Harris will introduce their economic team, with women in top spots.
Biden faces a balancing act in choosing a top aide with business ties.
Biden’s team is planning a pared-down inauguration that keeps spectators ‘healthy and safe.’
Trump has raised $170 million since Election Day.
Their agenda on the line, progressives descend on Georgia — but with modified messages.
As Senate runoffs approach, Trump’s attacks on Georgia Republicans have worried some in his party.
Get email alerts with live updates about the U.S. presidential transition.

Giuliani is said to have discussed a possible pardon with Trump.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer, has been at the forefront of promoting the president’s baseless claims of election irregularities.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer, has been at the forefront of promoting the president’s baseless claims of election irregularities.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times
Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer who has led the most extensive efforts to damage his client’s political rivals and undermine the election results, discussed with the president as recently as last week the possibility of receiving a pre-emptive pardon before Mr. Trump leaves office, according to two people told of the discussion.

It was not clear who raised the topic. The men have also talked previously about a pardon for Mr. Giuliani, according to the people. Mr. Trump has not indicated what he will do, one of the people said.

Mr. Giuliani’s potential criminal exposure is unclear. He was under investigation as recently as last summer by federal prosecutors in Manhattan for his business dealings in Ukraine and his role in ousting the American ambassador there, a plot that was at the heart of the impeachment of Mr. Trump.

Mr. Giuliani did not respond to a message seeking comment. Christianne Allen, his spokeswoman, said, “Mayor Giuliani cannot comment on any discussions that he has with his client.”

Mr. Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello, said, “He’s not concerned about this investigation, because he didn’t do anything wrong and that’s been our position from Day 1.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Trump did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Such a broad pardon pre-empting any charge or conviction is highly unusual but does have precedent. George Washington pardoned plotters of the Whiskey Rebellion, shielding them from treason prosecutions. In the most famous example, Gerald R. Ford pardoned Richard M. Nixon for all of his actions as president. Jimmy Carter pardoned thousands of American men who illegally avoided the draft for the Vietnam War.

Mr. Trump has wielded his clemency powers liberally in cases that resonate with him personally or for people who have a direct line to him through friends or family, while thousands of other cases await his review.

Last week he pardoned his former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn broadly for potential legal troubles beyond the charge he had faced of lying to federal investigators. The move raised expectations that Mr. Trump will bestow clemency on other associates in his final weeks in office.

— Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt"

Presidential Transition: Giuliani Said to Have Discussed Pardon With Trump - The New York Times