Monthly Archives: September 2020

Democrats are growing worried about Democratic nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenThe Memo: Warning signs flash for Trump on debates Senate Republicans signal openness to working with Biden National postal mail handlers union endorses Biden MOREs play-it-safe strategy with 50 days to go before the election.

They are specifically worried that as President TrumpDonald John TrumpBarr criticizes DOJ in speech declaring all agency power 'is invested in the attorney general' Military leaders asked about using heat ray on protesters outside White House: report Powell warns failure to reach COVID-19 deal could 'scar and damage' economy MOREs campaign reaches millions of votersthrough in-persondoor-knocking events and big rallies held in defiance of coronavirus restrictions, the Biden campaign is relying on digital organizing and phone outreach.

On a field training call over the weekend, several veterans of the Obama and Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonBarr criticizes DOJ in speech declaring all agency power 'is invested in the attorney general' Virginia Democrat blasts Trump's 'appalling' remark about COVID-19 deaths in 'blue states' The Hill's Campaign Report: Biden asks if public can trust vaccine from Trump ahead of Election Day | Oklahoma health officials raised red flags before Trump rally MORE presidential campaignsexpressed concerns to Caroline Grey, a Biden campaign aide who co-founded the Democratic digital firm Civis Analytics.

Ex-Obama aides also grumbledprivately following the Saturday Zoom call,which had been aimed specifically at getting Obama alumni more active in the final stretch of Bidens campaign.

After the call, one formerObama aidesaid that if Biden loses a close election, analysts will look back on the field operations in the same way they look back on Hillary Clintons decision to not visit Wisconsin in 2016.

If Biden loses, this will be his not-going-to-Wisconsin, the ex-official said.

Biden has wrapped his campaign around a follow-the-science approach to the coronavirus, ripping Trump for his handling of the pandemic. His campaign pivoted away from in-person contacts once the pandemic struck, while encouraging voters to mail in ballots.

Those wanting Biden to do more traditional campaign events understand the argument, they just worry it will backfire.

From a health perspective, refraining from in-person GOTV efforts is the right thing to do," said one of the Democratson the field organizing call, referring to get out the vote efforts.But the campaign is making a big bet that phone calls and texts can supplant hitting the pavement. The president is not making that bet.

"It goes against the grain of everything about a campaign in the final days," another attendee said.

Some Democrats brush off the criticism, arguing that Trumps flouting of masks and social distancing will end up hurting his campaign.

They also say Biden has effectively abandoned an outdated model of door-knocking for more meaningful and efficient forms of outreach.

The Biden campaign has invested $100 million into its ground game, which includes 2,500 staff in battleground states, a 500 percent increase since May 1. They say theyve had 2.6 million conversations with voters since August alone, and that in the past month theyve had 183,000 volunteers attend virtual events.

They say the campaign is leveraging next-generation organizing through phone banks and new tools, such as Slack, a VoteJoe app and the IWillVote.com website.

In this day and age, when a persons bullshitmeter is already very high, having a stranger knock on your door in the middle of a f------ pandemic to try and hold a meaningful conversation is total lunacy, said Michael Halle, a battlegrounds state organizer for the Obama and Clinton presidential campaigns.

Democrats have had high anxiety over the 2020 election throughout the cycle given Clintons upset loss to Trump in 2016.

Clinton, like Biden, was ahead of Trump in polls, and ended up winning the popular vote by more than 3 million. But she lost the Electoral College, along with Florida, North Carolina, and more surprisingly, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Since when has a Democratic strategy of playing it safe every worked out for us? asked one Democratic fundraiser. We like to make fun of their boat parades or door knocking in a pandemic, but when voters see all this energy out there for Trump, they feel it gives them permission to join the party.

Trump is seeking to use Bidens approach against him, and the president has been hitting the road again and again.

By the end of this week, the president will have visited three states Clinton won in 2016 New Hampshire, Minnesota and Nevada as he seeks to expand the map. Biden will have visited the core battlegrounds of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida, as well as Minnesota, which hes expected to win, even as polls show him running close in states Trump is expected to win, such as Iowa, Ohio, Texas and Georgia.

The Trump campaign and Republican National Committee say they have contacted 100 million voters this cycle, triple their 2016 number, with the 100 millionth coming on a door knock in North Carolina.

In rural parts of battleground states, supporters have been organizing MAGA meetups and boat parades, while Democrats continue to shun large political gatherings because of the pandemic.

During the week of the GOP convention, the Republicans knocked on more than 2 million doors, bringing their total to more than 12 million door knocks since restarting field operations in mid-June.

Other Democrats dismiss the criticism.

This is not a campaign cycle that will be defined by big events or generating extreme energy and enthusiasm on the campaign trail, said Andrew Feldman, a Democratic strategist. Its about who the country trusts to put the pieces of a broken country back together. Weve seen in poll after poll that Joe Biden is that person, and that means the campaign has used him in effective ways to show how different he is from the current occupant in the White House.

A recent Axios-Ipsos survey found that 59 percent of voters said that door-to-door campaigning is a moderate or large risk, including 58 percent of independents and nearly 70 percentof Democrats.

Several recent media analyses have found Democrats building early vote-by-mail and party registration advantages in the battleground states.

The Democrat field programs are beating Republicans in key metrics like registration and vote by mail across the battleground states and were reaching out to voters in a way that is safe and effective, said David Bergstein, the Democratic National Committees director of battleground state communications. I think voters right now appreciate the seriousness in which our party is taking the coronavirus and weve shifted our tactics to allow us to continue to reach out to every voter we need to win.

Original post:

Democrats worry Biden playing it too safe | TheHill - The Hill

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden answers a reporters question after remarks in Wilmington, Del., September 16, 2020.(Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)They know that the media, corporations, schools, and even churches will cheer them on.

NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLEWriting in The Atlantic recently, the sober-minded commentator Shadi Hamid says, I struggle to imagine how, beyond utter shock, millions of Democrats will process a Trump victory. For Democrats, having failed to cope with the 2016 election, and believing the polls that show a solid Joe Biden lead, another shock Trump win would provoke mass disillusion with electoral politics as a means of change at a time when disillusion is already dangerously high. And it would lead decent folks astray. They would seek remedies outside the political process, including through nonpeaceful means, though, not necessarily out of hope but out of despair.

Dont notice the gleam in the arsonists eye, hes really just heartbroken over the fate of the Biden-Harris ticket!

Given Hamids premises, why bother even having the election? Why not find a peaceful but extralegal procedure to make Joe Biden president right this second? We could relieve the whole nation of the suspense of what Democrats will do if once again theyve nominated someone who cant beat one of the most broadly unpopular political figures of modern times.

For what its worth, like Hamid, Im worried about post-election violence. But my view of the causes is slightly different. Hamid says, Losers of elections need to believe that they can win the next time around. Otherwise their incentives to play the spoiler increase. Okay, true enough.

He also says that the anxiety gripping the two parties is asymmetric. Joe Biden is a moderate Democrat, he says, and therefore theoretically more acceptable to Republicans, whereas Donald Trump represents the nativist wing of an already nativist Republican Party. His conclusion: Biden should win for reasons of civic peace.

Now leave aside the claims of leftists, including Obama, that Joe Biden has become much more progressive in his current campaign. And lets leave aside the question of whether Donald Trump is actually a moderate or liberal Republican on issues such as federal welfare spending. Hamid fails in his analysis because he is unwilling or unable to see things from the other side. Maybe its time to practice empathy.

What if the anxiety gripping the parties was asymmetric in the other direction? Conservatives dont see politics as just a matter of elective office, but of power generally. And they notice that the major corporations, Hollywood and pop culture, academia, whats left of mainstream media, most local institutions, the leadership class of their own movements through the years, and even their own churches are substantially to their left politically. They also notice that progressives notch major political and cultural wins even from conservative elites, and even following conservative victories.

Hamid might have noticed that conservative activism was born over despair of the sort he describes. It was born of the observation that even winning elections wasnt enough to secure political victories. Instead of the Electoral College or the Senate, conservatives had to face the more inscrutable Supreme Court, which for years overturned conservative legislation and enacted progressive victories that had no chance of receiving a democratic mandate. Conservatives response was to double down on electoral strategies, making an explicit case that they needed to win elections to reform the judiciary. Why didnt conservatives simply pout and threaten to abandon the democratic process altogether, as Hamid admits liberals are wont to do?

Perhaps because conservatives then, as now, knew on which side of the divide the institutional and oligarchic power landed. Progressives feel secure in making all but open threats of violence and revolution because they know that the heads of domestic security agencies are on their side, they know that the most powerful voices in media and academia are at the ready to craft apologies for their violence. And they know that their reputations will be restored or even burnished after committing violence on behalf of their causes.

The modern American conservative movement was a populist and democratic movement because it had to be. The modern Left knows where its power lies as well with the already powerful.

See the article here:

Democrats Promise to Be Sore (and Violent) Losers - National Review

WASHINGTON (AP) The State Department on Wednesday rejected Democrats charges of improperly firing its independent inspector general and defended its weapons sales to Saudi Arabia.

Democrats say the two are connected because Steve Linick, the former inspector general, told lawmakers in June that, at the time of his firing, his office had been probing Secretary of State Mike Pompeos emergency declaration that sped up the $8 billion in arms sales. Democrats and some Republicans complained that the move improperly bypassed Congress and that Linicks firing was part of a cover-up.

See: Democrats call White House counsels letter defending sidelining of inspectors general dismissive and completely inadequate

Three of the departments top officials testified Wednesday during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that Pompeo had asked President Donald Trump to fire Linick for a variety of management and ethical malpractice practices. Previously, they had blamed him for not advancing the departments mission and leaking details about the probe. Linick was fired in May.

If there is due cause, as [has] been laid out, said R. Clarke Cooper, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, there is no cover-up.

See:House committees subpoena Pompeo aides over firing of State Department inspector general

And:Pence-aligned acting inspector general abruptly leaves State Department post

But Democrats insisted the allegations against Linick are after-the-fact excuses for dismissing an independent investigator who was probing allegations that could embarrass Pompeo. Linick was also investigating complaints that Pompeo and his wife, Susan, improperly used department staff to perform personal tasks for them.

We have real concern on this committee that the firing of Mr. Linick was an abuse of power, said Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. The fact that we had to drag you up here kicking and screaming itself makes me think that the department has been trying to hide the truth.

The session was an election-season effort by the Democratic-led House to challenge the Trump administrations well-documented refusal to cooperate with oversight. The struggle has played out across the courts and the committees of Congress since Trump took office in 2017, most notably during investigations that led to the presidents impeachment by the House and his acquittal by the GOP-led Senate.

Cooper, Undersecretary of State for Management Brian Bulatao and the departments acting legal adviser, Marik String, testified only after the committee prepared to subpoena Pompeo.

Linicks firing was one of several dismissals by Trump of people charged with preventing fraud and abuse in the government. The series of abrupt ousters concerned members of Congress, including some Republicans, who questioned whether Trump was interfering with legitimate oversight.

The State Department officials told the committee that Pompeo acted appropriately on all counts. The IG concluded that the arms sales did not violate the letter of the law but said the department did not take enough action to limit civilian casualties.

Cooper agreed with this criticism, a rare acknowledgment from the administration.

That is a finding I not only accept, but which I, my bureau, the department, and this administration take to heart, which we were working to address before the IG even put pen to paper, and which we will continue to address, he said.

Congress had pushed for a probe into administrations May 2019 decision to proceed with $8 billion in sales to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Jordan. To clear the way past lawmakers objections, the administration declared a national emergency due to tensions with Iran.

Members of Congress had been blocking some of the sales because they might contribute to the human rights disaster in Yemen. A Saudi-led series of bombings there caused significant civilian casualties.

Read on:State Department inspector general to prepare report on ambassadors reported pitch for British Open play at Trump club

View original post here:

State Department defends firing of inspector general, while Democrats say Pompeo, Trump and allies have offered only after-the-fact excuses -...

We hear often that the November election is the most consequential in our lifetime. But the importance of the election is not just which candidate or which party wins. Voters also face the question of whether the American democratic experiment, one of the boldest political innovations in human history, will survive.

Our democracys enemies, foreign and domestic, want us to concede in advance that our voting systems are faulty or fraudulent; that sinister conspiracies have distorted the political will of the people; that our public discourse has been perverted by the news media and social networks riddled with prejudice, lies and ill will; that judicial institutions, law enforcement and even national security have been twisted, misused and misdirected to create anxiety and conflict, not justice and social peace.

If those are the results of this tumultuous election year, we are lost, no matter which candidate wins. No American, and certainly no American leader, should want such an outcome. Total destruction and sowing salt in the earth of American democracy is a catastrophe well beyond simple defeat and a poison for generations. An electoral victory on these terms would be no victory at all. The judgment of history, reflecting on the death of enlightened democracy, would be harsh.

The most urgent task American leaders face is to ensure that the elections results are accepted as legitimate. Electoral legitimacy is the essential linchpin of our entire political culture. We should see the challenge clearly in advance and take immediate action to respond.

The most important part of an effective response is to finally, at long last, forge a genuinely bipartisan effort to save our democracy, rejecting the vicious partisanship that has disabled and destabilized government for too long. If we cannot find common ground now, on this core issue at the very heart of our endangered system, we never will.

Our key goal should be reassurance. We must firmly, unambiguously reassure all Americans that their vote will be counted, that it will matter, that the peoples will expressed through their votes will not be questioned and will be respected and accepted. I propose that Congress creates a new mechanism to help accomplish this purpose. It should create a supremely high-level bipartisan and nonpartisan commission to oversee the election. This commission would not circumvent existing electoral reporting systems or those that tabulate, evaluate or certify the results. But it would monitor those mechanisms and confirm for the public that the laws and regulations governing them have been scrupulously and expeditiously followed or that violations have been exposed and dealt with without political prejudice and without regard to political interests of either party.

Also, this commission would be responsible for monitoring those forces that seek to harm our electoral system through interference, fraud, disinformation or other distortions. These would be exposed to the American people in a timely manner and referred to appropriate law enforcement agencies and national security entities.

Such a commission must be composed of national leaders personally committed by oath to put partisan politics aside even in the midst of an electoral contest of such importance. They would accept as a personal moral responsibility to put the integrity and fairness of the election process above everything else, making public reassurance their goal.

Commission members undertaking this high, historic responsibility should come from both parties and could include congressional leaders, current and former governors, elder statespersons, former national security leaders, perhaps the former Supreme Court justices David Souter and Anthony Kennedy, and business leaders from social media companies.

This commission would be created by emergency legislative action. During that process, its precise mandate, composition, powers and resources would be defined. Among other aspects, the legislation would define the relationship between the commission and the intelligence and law enforcement communities with the capability necessary for the commissions work. And it would define how the commission would work with all the individual states.

Congressional leaders must see the need as urgent and move quickly with common purpose. Seeking broad bipartisan unity on such an initiative at such a fraught time goes against the nature of the political creatures we have become. But this is the moment and this is the issue that demands a higher patriotism. No member of Congress could have any valid reason to reject any step that could contribute to the fundamental health of our Republic. With what should be the unanimous support of Congress, the legislation must call upon the election campaigns of both parties to commit in advance to respect the findings of the commission. Both presidential candidates should be called upon to make such personal commitments of their own.

If we fail to take every conceivable effort to ensure the integrity of our election, the winners will not be Donald Trump or Joe Biden, Republicans or Democrats. The only winners will be Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Ali Khamenei. No one who supports a healthy democracy could want that.

Dan Coats was the director of national intelligence from 2017 to 2019. He served as a U.S. senator from Indiana from 1989 to 1999 and again from 2010 to 2016. From 2001 to 2005 he was the U.S. ambassador to Germany. Currently, Mr. Coats is a senior adviser with the law firm King & Spalding.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

See the rest here:

Dan Coats: We Need a Commission to Oversee the 2020 Elections - The New York Times

The November election is complicating the Democratic strategy in the looming government shutdown fight.

Feeling momentum as they aim to win back the Senate and the White House, Democrats are divided overwhether toagree to a the GOP-favored stopgap bill that lasts into December or push for a longer deal to fund the government into early 2021.

A shorter bill, supporters hope, would force Congress to reach a larger funding deal before the end of the year. But a bill that lasts into next year would take a lame duck shutdown fight off the table and give Democrats more leverage if Democratic nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenThe Memo: Warning signs flash for Trump on debates Senate Republicans signal openness to working with Biden National postal mail handlers union endorses Biden MORE is elected president.

Weve gone back and forth, its a split decision in the caucus. If you can tell us what happens Nov. 3 it is a lot easier. ... The uncertainty about the presidential election is an element, Senate Democratic Whip Dick DurbinRichard (Dick) Joseph DurbinSenate Republicans signal openness to working with Biden Top GOP senator calls for Biden to release list of possible Supreme Court picks GOP ramps up attacks on Democrats over talk of nixing filibuster MORE (Ill.) said when asked about the length of a bill.

Congress has until Sept. 30 to strike a deal and pass a stopgap funding bill known as a continuing resolution (CR), which will continue current funding levels and let Washington avoid a messy shutdown roughly a month before the election.

Though House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPowell warns failure to reach COVID-19 deal could 'scar and damage' economy Overnight Defense: House to vote on military justice bill spurred by Vanessa Guilln death | Biden courts veterans after Trump's military controversies Intelligence chief says Congress will get some in-person election security briefings MORE (D-Calif.) and Treasury Secretary Steven MnuchinSteven Terner MnuchinDemocrats scramble on COVID-19 relief amid division, Trump surprise American Airlines, unions call for six-month extension of government aid Trump undercuts GOP, calls for bigger COVID-19 relief package MORE have informally agreed to a clean spending bill, they have not struck an agreement on the length of the legislation.

Neither Pelosi nor Senate Democratic Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerDemocrats scramble on COVID-19 relief amid division, Trump surprise Pelosi, Schumer 'encouraged' by Trump call for bigger coronavirus relief package Schumer, Sanders call for Senate panel to address election security MORE (N.Y.) have publicly endorsed a timeline. A House Democratic aide noted that behind-the-scenes negotiations about what the strategy should be are ongoing.

We are now looking at anomalies in the rest, and well figure out the timing when we do, Pelosi said during her weekly press conference.

Schumer added that Democrats were discussing what time the CR should go to and we haven't formulated our position yet.

Some Democrats are open to a stopgap bill into December, arguing that they want to finish work on the fiscal 2021 bills by the end of the year. That could let Democrats focus on other legislative priorities next year and avoid an immediate funding fight.

I think we could get a good package done in the lame duck, said Sen. Chris MurphyChristopher (Chris) Scott MurphyGOP chairman to release interim report on Biden probe 'in about a week' This week: House returns for pre-election sprint Battle over timing complicates Democratic shutdown strategy MORE (D-Conn.), a member of the Appropriations Committee. Im never a fan of CRs in general and not a fan of long CRs. Id like to believe we could use the lame duck to write a good budget.

Sen. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineThe Hill's Morning Report - Sponsored by The Air Line Pilots Association - Pence lauds Harris as 'experienced debater'; Trump, Biden diverge over debate prep Catholic group launches .7M campaign against Biden targeting swing-state voters GOP senator to quarantine after coronavirus exposure MORE (D-Va.) said he thought the funding bill should go into mid-to-late December, adding we ought to try to wrap it all up before Christmas.

Theres no guarantee a December deadline would force Congress to reach an agreement on full fiscal 2021 bills, and doing so during the lame duck could be a herculean legislative task.

The House is scheduled to be in session for 13 days between the election and the end of the year. And while the House has already passed 10 of the 12 fiscal 2021 government funding bills, the Senate hasnt even introduced one amid a standoff on amendment votes.

Others are pushing for a longer bill that would keep the government funded into next year. That strategy would avoid a year-end shutdown fight, and could give Democrats more leverage to craft a package in 2021 that includes more of their priorities if November goes well for the party.

Polls show Biden leading Trump, and the battle for the Senate majority has moved in Democrats favor compared to the start of the cycle.

Sen. Patrick LeahyPatrick Joseph LeahyBattle over timing complicates Democratic shutdown strategy Hillicon Valley: Russia 'amplifying' concerns around mail-in voting to undermine election | Facebook and Twitter take steps to limit Trump remarks on voting | Facebook to block political ads ahead of election Top Democrats press Trump to sanction Russian individuals over 2020 election interference efforts MORE (Vt.), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, is pushing for a longer CR, and has floated a bill that goes as far as into March.

I would prefer a longer one. ... I think it gives more stability and saves money Leahy said.

But passing a stopgap bill into early next year could add to what is expected to be a lengthy legislative to-do list for Democrats if they win back the White House and hold majorities in the House and Senate for the first time since President Obamas first two years in office.

Ive heard it argued both ways. But I just want to tell you that if we have a new president, a new administration and even new leadership in the Senate its going to be a very busy January, Durbin said.

Demanding a longer CR would set up a clash with Republicans, who are supportive of passing a continuing resolution that runs into December. Congress has a tight timeline to haggle over the funding bill. When the House convenes on Monday, it will have 12 legislative days until the Sept. 30 deadline.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellSenate Republicans signal openness to working with Biden Hillicon Valley: DOJ indicts Chinese, Malaysian hackers accused of targeting over 100 organizations | GOP senators raise concerns over Oracle-TikTok deal | QAnon awareness jumps in new poll The Hill's Campaign Report: Biden asks if public can trust vaccine from Trump ahead of Election Day | Oklahoma health officials raised red flags before Trump rally MORE (R-Ky.) told reporters this week that he would back a clean CR that goes into December. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard ShelbyRichard Craig ShelbyDems discussing government funding bill into February GOP short of votes on Trump's controversial Fed pick This week: House returns for pre-election sprint MORE (R-Ala.) indicated that Mnuchin is also supportive of the timeline.

Were advocating a December deal. Thats what the leader wants, thats what I want; I think Mnuchin is on board on that, Shelby said.

Asked about some Democrats wanting a longer stopgap bill, Shelby noted that he had spoken with Leahy but I told him we werent going to do that.

Excerpt from:

Battle over timing complicates Democratic shutdown strategy | TheHill - The Hill

A congressional committee is asking for answers from Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar following NBC News reporting that he and other Trump administration officials were invited to a May 2018 meeting in the White House Situation Room where they voted by a show of hands to separate migrant children who crossed the border illegally with their parents.

In a letter sent from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Thursday, three Democratic members said the recent reporting is at odds with Azars previous statements that suggested he was not aware the Trump administrations zero tolerance policy would separate children.

You testified that you were disappointed that you were not told about potential family separations, and when asked whether you would have stopped the policy, you testified, [i] I had been alerted to it, I could have raised objections and concerns, absolutely, the letter said.

NBC News reported that Azars name was among others on an invite list to the meeting where, according to two officials present, then Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said there were not enough resources to prosecute parents and return them to their families in a timely manner.

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

Without a swift process, the children would enter into the custody of Health and Human Services, where Azar was and is still in charge. White House advisor Stephen Miller moved the issue to a vote, and by a show of hands the attendees agreed to move forward with the policy, the two officials told NBC News.

It was not clear whether Azar attended the meeting or was merely invited.

The committee is asking Azar to answer questions, including whether he attended the meeting and, if he did, how he voted. They are also asking for any documents related to the meeting.

If you attended this meeting and were informed of this policy proposal, why did you testify before the Committee that you were not aware of this policy and its impacts on HHS until after it was publicly announced? the letter said.

Throughout the fallout of the family separation crisis, you have worked to distance yourself from the policy, claiming that the policy originated at DHS and the Department of Justice, and was forced upon HHSBut if this new reporting is accurate, it indicates that at best, you should have known about the implications of the proposed family separation policy but did not object to itand at worst, you were complicit in the decision to separate thousands of vulnerable children from their families, the three committee members wrote.

HHS spokesman Michael Caputo said at the time of publication of the NBC News story, This never happened.

Caputo has recently taken a leave of absence following comments he made on his Facebook page about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Azar has until October 1 to respond to the committees questions, the letter said.

We will respond to Congress," a Health and Human Services spokesperson said Thursday.

Julia Ainsley is a correspondent covering the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

Continue reading here:

Democrats demand answers from Azar after NBC News report on family separation vote - NBC News