Categories
Travel News

Supreme Court Will Not Hear Pennsylvania Election Case Over Mail-In Ballots

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said on Monday it would not hear an appeal from Republicans in Pennsylvania who sought to disqualify the ballots mailed in the 2020 presidential election that came after election day.

The brief court order gave no reason to dismiss the case, marking the end of the Supreme Court’s litigation over the election. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented, saying the court should have used it to provide guidance in future elections.

The dissenting judges acknowledged that the number of ballots at issue in the case was too small to affect President Biden’s victory in the state. But the legal question raised by the case – over the power of state courts to review election laws – was, they said, an important issue that should be resolved without the pressure of an impending election.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in September that ballots sent out before election day could be counted if they arrived up to three days after. On two occasions before the election, the United States Supreme Court refused to intervene in the case, although several justices expressed doubts about the power of the state court to override the Legislative Assembly of the state, which set a deadline on polling day for receiving ballots by mail.

On Monday, Judge Thomas wrote that the time had come to take up the case.

“At first glance,” he writes, “it may seem reasonable to address this question the next time it arises. After all, the 2020 election is now over, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling was not decisive for the federal election. But however strong this argument may be in other contexts, it fails in the context of elections.

“Because the court system is not well suited to deal with these kinds of issues in the short time available immediately after an election,” Judge Thomas wrote, “we should use the cases available outside of this truncated context. to answer these questions, certainly important.

In a separate dissent, Judge Alito, joined by Judge Gorsuch, agreed that “our review at this time would be very beneficial.”

“A decision in these cases would have no bearing on the 2020 elections,” Judge Alito wrote. “But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections.”

On October 19, before Judge Amy Coney Barrett joined the court, the justices found themselves in a deadlock, 4 to 4, over an emergency request in the case. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said they would have granted a stay blocking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. On the other side were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the three-member Liberal wing: Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Later that month, judges refused a plea from state Republicans to expedite a decision on the legality of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In a statement released at the time, Judge Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, criticized the court’s handling of the case, which he said had “unnecessarily created conditions that could lead to serious problems. post-election ”.

“The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an executive order which outright amends an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature under its authority under the Constitution of the United States to establish rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office.” , wrote Judge Alito adding that he regretted that the election was taking place “under a cloud”.

“It would be highly desirable to render a decision on the constitutionality of the state Supreme Court’s decision before the elections,” Judge Alito wrote. “This issue is of national importance, and it is highly likely that the state Supreme Court’s decision violates the Federal Constitution.”

But there was not enough time, he wrote. Yet Judge Alito left no doubt about his position on the issue in the case.

“The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, and not on state courts, the power to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless,” he wrote, “if a court of The state could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by asserting that the constitutional provisions of the state gave the courts the power to make the rules they deemed appropriate for the conduct of a fair election. “

Even after the election, Pennsylvania Republicans continued to seek a Supreme Court review in the Pennsylvania Republican Party v Boockvar case, No. 20-542, claiming judges should address the issue she presented of orderly manner.

“By resolving the important and recurring issues now, the Court can provide the advice that legislatures and state courts across the country desperately need outside of the context of a hotly contested election and ahead of the next election,” their report said. memory. “The alternative is for the court to leave legislatures and courts with a lack of advance guidance and clarity regarding the oversight law – only to be called upon to answer these questions in a future after-the-fact litigation over a contested election,” with the time that accompanies it. pressures and perceptions of partisan interest. “

On Monday, Judge Thomas wrote that the court had missed an opportunity.

“One wonders what awaits this tribunal”, he wrote. “We failed to resolve this dispute before the election, and therefore provide clear rules. Today we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections.

“The decision to leave the electoral law hidden under a veil of doubt is puzzling,” Judge Thomas wrote. “By doing nothing we are causing further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our citizens deserve better and expect more from us. “

Categories
Travel News

House managers base their case against Trump, but most Republicans are uninfluenced

With Republican positions hardening and President Biden’s agenda procedurally slowed, Democratic senators began to signal that they had seen enough, too, and members of both sides were rallying around a plan to end quickly to trial with a vote on guilt or innocence. from Saturday.

Confident of acquittal, Mr Trump was spotted on a golf course in Florida as his defense team prepared a truncated presentation to be offered on Friday rather than taking the full two days for arguments permitted by the rules of the trial.

After a highly controversial preliminary appearance earlier this week, lawyers for Mr. Trump planned to argue that he was being prosecuted for partisan enmity, had never openly called for violence and was not responsible for the actions of his supporters .

Republican senators have been reluctant to defend Mr. Trump’s actions, instead explaining their likely acquittal votes by arguing that it is unconstitutional and unwise to bring a former president to justice and by accusing Democrats who sometimes use fiery speech themselves to hold a political enemy to a double. Standard. The Senate on Tuesday rejected the constitutionality argument by 56 to 44, allowing the trial to continue, but Republicans said they were under no obligation to accept the judgment.

“My point of view is unchanged as to whether or not we have the power to do it, and I am certainly not bound by the fact that 56 people think we are doing it,” said Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of the Missouri. “I can vote, and I think you can’t remove a former president. And if the former president did things that were illegal, there is a process to follow for that.

Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio offered similar reasoning. “What happened on January 6 – I said this when it started – was unpatriotic, anti-American, traitor, an unacceptable crime,” he said. “The fundamental question for me, and I don’t know for everyone, is whether an impeachment trial is appropriate for someone who is no longer in office. I do not believe this is the case.

Categories
Travel News

House presents case against Trump, calling him ‘chief instigator’

“With his back against the wall, when all else has failed, he turns to his supporters – who he had already spent months saying the election was stolen from – and he amplified it further,” said Colorado Democrat Representative Joe Neguse. .

After dozens of frivolous lawsuits failed, officials said, Mr. Trump began pressuring officials in major battlefield states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia to reverse his losses there. -low. When that failed, he tried the Justice Department, then publicly tried to shame Republican members of Congress for helping him. Finally, he insisted that Mr Pence assume non-existent powers to unilaterally reverse their loss on January 6, when the vice president would oversee the counting of the electoral votes in Congress.

“Let me be clear: the president wasn’t just coming for one or two people, or Democrats like me,” California Rep. Ted Lieu said, looking at the senators. “He was coming for you.

At the same time, the leaders argued, the president was knowingly encouraging his supporters to take matters into their own hands. When an armada of his supporters tried to get a Biden campaign bus off the freeway in October, Mr. Trump applauded them on Twitter. He began to adopt increasingly violent language, they noted, and did nothing to denounce the armed mobs that were springing up in his name in cities across the country. Instead, he repeatedly invited them to Washington on January 6 to come together to “stop the theft” as Congress gathered to formalize the victory of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.

“When he saw first-hand the violence that his conduct was creating, he did not stop it,” Mr. Neguse said. “He did not condemn the violence. He prompted it further and he became more specific. He didn’t just tell them to fight like hell. He told them how, where and when.

At times the presentation, given by a group of Democrats with extensive courtroom experience, resembled a criminal prosecution – only in this case the jury was made up of Senators who were also struggling witnesses as they relived. in detail the trauma of that day. .

Delegate Stacey Plaskett from the US Virgin Islands walked them through much of the video, including scenes of rioters inside the Capitol mockingly calling out President Nancy Pelosi and flooding her office right after assistants had ran to barricade himself in a conference room and hide under a table.

Categories
Travel News

Impeachment case targets Marshal’s outrage over Capitol attack on Trump

“The story of the President’s actions is both fascinating and horrific,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and senior prosecutor, in an interview. “We believe every American should be aware of what happened – that the reason he was impeached by the House and the reason he should be sentenced and expelled from his future federal office is to ensure that such an attack on our democracy and our Constitution does not happen again. “

By making Mr. Trump the first US president to be twice impeached, Democrats have essentially given themselves an unprecedented overhaul. When Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, was preparing to prosecute Mr. Trump for the first time for a lobbying campaign on Ukraine, he read the 605-page account of the coverage of the impeachment trial. President Bill Clinton in 1999, sending as many assistants. 20 dispatches a day as he sought to modernize a procedure that had only taken place twice before.

This time, a new group of nine Democratic leaders only need to return for a year to study the lessons of Mr Schiff’s pursuit: don’t upset Republicans, use lots of videos and, most importantly, make succinct arguments. to avoid lulling the jury of lawmakers into boredom or distraction.

Lawyers for Mr. Trump have indicated that they again intend to mount a largely technical defense, saying the Senate “does not have the jurisdiction” to try a former president after he leaves because the Constitution does not. not say explicitly. While many legal scholars and a Senate majority disagree, Republicans have flocked to the argument en masse to justify dismissing the case without weighing on Mr. Trump’s conduct.

But lawyers Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen also plan to deny that Mr. Trump instigated violence or intended to interfere with Congressional formalization of Mr. Biden’s victory. , claiming that his baseless claims that the election was “stolen” are protected by the First Amendment. And Mr Castor told Fox News he too would rely on the video, possibly unrest in the cities Americans led by Democrats.

Managers will try to refute them with both constitutional arguments and an overwhelming body of evidence. Mr Raskin’s team spent dozens of hours putting together a wealth of crowd-captured videos, Mr Trump’s own unvarnished words, and the criminal pleas of rioters who said they acted at the behest of Mr. the former president.

Primary source material can replace live testimony. Trying to call new witnesses has been the subject of a long debate from leaders, whose evidentiary record has several loopholes that the White House or military officials could possibly fill. In the last trial, Democrats made an unsuccessful request for witnesses at the center of their case, but this time many party members say they are not needed to prove the charge and would simply cost Mr Biden a precious time to move your agenda forward without changing the outcome.

“It’s not that there shouldn’t be witnesses; these are just the practical realities of our situation with a former president, ”said Daniel S. Goldman, a former House attorney who worked on Mr. Trump’s first indictment. “This is also something we learned from the last trial: he is a political animal, and these witnesses are not going to move the needle.”

Mr. Raskin and other managers declined to discuss the strategy, but current and former officials familiar with the confidential preparations agreed to discuss it anonymously. The almost complete silence of prosecutors as the trial approached was another change from the strategy of Mr. Trump’s first indictment, when Democrats set up a large communications war room on Capitol Hill. and saturated the airwaves of cable television in an all-out battle against Mr. Trump in the court of public opinion.

They have largely left it to trusted allies like Mr Schiff and President Nancy Pelosi to discuss their case publicly and respond to criticism of why the House is insisting even now that Mr Trump is being removed from office. its functions.

“If we didn’t follow through on this, we might as well remove any sanction from the Constitution of impeachment – just remove it,” Pelosi told reporters who wondered why Democrats would spend so much time on the impeachment. Congress with a former president. .

Key questions about the scope and form of the trial remain unresolved. Senators spent the weekend haggling over the precise structure and rules of procedure, the first time in American history that a former president will be tried.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers for Mr. Trump expected to have at least 12 hours each to present their case. Mr Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, has trained his colleagues in daily meetings to aggressively refine their arguments, hang on to the narrative where possible, and integrate them with the visual aids they plan to ” display on Senate televisions and screens. Across the country.

Behind the scenes, Democrats rely on many of the same lawyers and assistants who helped put the 2020 case together, including Susanne Sachsman Grooms of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and Aaron Hiller, Arya Hariharan, Sarah Istel and Amy Rutkin of the Judicial Committee. . The Chamber also temporarily recalled Barry H. Berke, a seasoned New York defense attorney, to act as lead counsel and Joshua Matz, a constitutional expert.

Mr Schiff said his team attempted to produce an “HBO miniseries” containing snippets of testimony to bring to life the esoteric plot about Mr Trump’s lobbying campaign on Ukraine. Mr. Raskin may sound more like a blockbuster action movie.

“The more you document all of the tragic events leading up to that day, the president’s misconduct that day, and the president’s reaction to people being attacked that day, the harder and harder it is to a senator to hide behind these false constitutionalists. fig leaves, ”said Schiff, who informally advised managers.

To assemble the presentation, Mr. Raskin’s team turned to the same outside company that helped assemble Mr. Schiff’s multimedia display. But Mr. Raskin is working with much richer material to tell a months-long story of how he and his colleagues believe Mr. Trump sowed, rallied and provoked a crowd in an attempt to reverse his defeat.

There are clips and tweets from Mr. Trump from last summer warning that he would only lose if the election was “rigged” against him; clips and tweets of him claiming victory after losing; and clips and tweets from state officials coming to the White House as he sought to “stop the theft.” There is the audio of an appeal in which Mr. Trump pressured the Georgian Secretary of State to “find” the votes necessary to overturn Mr. Biden’s victory there; as well as presidential tweets and accounts from sympathetic lawmakers who say that once those efforts failed, Mr. Trump resolutely turned his attention to the January 6 congressional meeting for one final statement.

In the center are footage of Mr. Trump speaking outside the White House hours before the crowd passed police and stormed the Capitol building. Officials’ preliminary brief suggests they consider juxtaposing footage of Mr. Trump urging his supporters to ‘fight like hell’ and march to Capitol Hill and confront Congress with videos posted by members of the crowd who can be heard processing his words in real life. time.

“Even with this trial, where the senators themselves were witnesses, it is very important to tell the whole story,” said Mr. Schiff. “It’s not just one day; it is the conduct of a president who uses his office to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power.

But proximity could also create complications. Several people familiar with the preparations said leaders were reluctant to say anything that could involve Republican lawmakers who echoed or welcomed the president’s baseless allegations of electoral fraud. To have the slightest chance of presenting an effective case, the leaders believe, they must make it clear that it is Mr. Trump who is on trial, not his party.

Categories
Travel News

Rules of the Supreme Court for Germany in the Nazi-Era Art Case

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously sentenced heirs to Nazi-era Jewish art dealers in Frankfurt who sought to sue Germany in US courts over artifacts they say the dealers were forced to sell for a third of their value.

The case Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, No. 19-351, concerned the Guelph Treasure, a medieval religious art treasure trove estimated today to be worth $ 250 million. A consortium of three Jewish-owned companies bought the collection at the end of the Weimar Republic and sold about half of it to individual buyers and museums, including the Cleveland Museum of Art.

When the Nazi government took power, the collection attracted the attention of Hermann Goering, Hitler’s second in command and Prime Minister of Prussia. According to the heirs, he threatened the merchants with political persecution and physical harm to coerce them to sell the remaining artifacts in 1935 for much less than they were worth.

The pieces are now at the Museum of Decorative Arts in Berlin. In 2014, a German commission determined that the museum had acquired the collection legitimately. The commission said the 1935 sale to Prussia was voluntary and came after a year-long negotiation that resulted in a price halfway between the open positions of the two sides.

The heirs sued in federal court and a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against Germany, saying the case could be continued .

The question for the judges was whether prosecution was prohibited by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally prohibits prosecution against foreign states. The law provides for some exceptions, including one for the expropriation of property.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, said the exception did not apply when a foreign government was accused of seizing the property of its own citizens.

The appeals court ruled that the heirs could invoke the exception because the artefacts were taken in connection with an act of genocide, relying on a provision in the law saying that sovereign immunity does not apply. not in cases “in which property rights taken in violation of international law are in question.” “

Chief Justice Roberts said the appeals court read that sentence too broadly.

“We do not need to decide whether the sale of the consortium property was an act of genocide, as the expropriation exception is best interpreted as referring to international law of expropriation rather than the rights of the ‘man,’ he wrote. “We are not looking to genocide law to determine whether we have jurisdiction over common law property claims of heirs. We are looking at the law of property. “

The Supreme Court rarely cites rulings from international tribunals in its rulings, but the chief justice made an exception on Wednesday, noting that the International Court of Justice had ruled in a case involving Germany that “a state is not deprived of immunity on account of being accused of serious violations of international human rights law. “

Chief Justice Roberts added that a general ruling could prompt lawsuits against the United States in foreign courts.

“As a nation, we would be surprised – and might even take reciprocal action – if a German court adjudicated Americans’ claims that they were entitled to hundreds of millions of dollars because of human rights violations. committed by the US government years ago, “he wrote.” There is no reason to expect that Germany’s reaction would be any different if the US courts exercised the claimed jurisdiction in this case. “

The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts to consider “an alternative argument raised by the heirs” – that their relatives were not German nationals at the time of the 1935 sale and were therefore free to sue.

In their brief to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the heirs stated that German Jews had been deprived of the legal and economic rights normally associated with citizenship long before 1935. In response, lawyers for Germany wrote that “the laws depriving German Jews of citizenship were not promulgated until after the 1935 purchase ”and that in any event the heirs“ do not and cannot claim that they were nationals of another State.”

The court also issued a brief unsigned decision in a similar case, Republic of Hungary v. Simon, n ° 18-1447. He was brought in by 14 Holocaust survivors, including four US citizens, who said their property was stolen by Hungary and its state-owned railroad, which deported hundreds of thousands of Jews to the Nazi death camps in the summer of 1944.

The court’s opinion ordered the appeals court, which had allowed the case to continue, to reconsider its decision in light of the ruling in the German case.

The Supreme Court issued a third decision on Wednesday, Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board, No. 19-199, allowing an injured railway worker to continue his business. It was the first 5-4 decision in a debated case in the court’s current tenure, and it was notable for the way the judges were divided.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the Liberal wing of three members of the court – made up of Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – to form a majority. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett were dissenting.

Categories
Travel News

Impeachment case claims Trump was ‘singularly responsible’ for Capitol Riot

“He summoned a crowd to Washington, urged them into a frenzy, and pointed them like a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue,” the officials wrote.

Unlike the first impeachment case against Mr. Trump, which centered on his lobbying campaign on Ukraine, this one enjoys bipartisan backing and prosecutors seem willing to frequently use Republicans’ own criticisms at the respect for Mr. Trump. Their brief cited Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, one of 10 House Republicans who voted for impeachment, as well as Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Minority Leader, who publicly stated that Mr. Trump “ had provoked ”the crowd.

In making constitutional arguments for Mr. Trump’s conviction, however, they went back hundreds of years, arguing that Mr. Trump not only instigated violence, but threatened the tradition of the peaceful transfer of power that had begun. by Washington. They also cited the founders’ debates over who would be arraigned and when, as well as a 19th-century impeachment trial of a former secretary of war, to argue that the Senate clearly had the right to judge Mr. Trump even after his departure. Office.

“There is no ‘January exception’ to impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution,” the leaders wrote. “A president must be fully accountable for his conduct in office from his first day in office until his last.

They also insisted that the First Amendment right to free speech could not protect Mr. Trump from responsibility for inciting violence that would seek to undermine the Constitution, undermining all rights that are devoted to it, including freedom of expression.

The President’s brief was smaller by design, with a longer and more detailed brief from his lawyers early next week. Yet the contours of their defense were becoming clear.

Lawyers said Democrats misinterpreted Mr Trump’s actions and intent, denying he was responsible for the Capitol riot or intended to interfere with the formalization by Congress of Mr. Biden’s victory. They said his words to supporters on January 6 – “if you don’t fight like hell you would have no more countries” – were not meant to be a call to violent action, but were about “the necessity”. to fight for electoral security in general. “

Categories
Travel News

The case of the serial sperm donor

Additionally, unlike sperm banks in the Netherlands, which prohibit anonymous donation, international sperm banks usually register donors under a pseudonym or number. In addition, they rely on clients to voluntarily report the births of their children when following offspring of sperm donors, and this count is not always accurate. And there is no international sperm donor registry, so a recipient doesn’t have an easy way of knowing where their donor might have donated or how many half-siblings their children might have.

Ms de Boer said she had been in contact with mothers who had children from Mr Meijer in Australia, Italy, Serbia, Ukraine, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Switzerland, Romania, Denmark , Sweden, Mexico and the United States. Several were in contact with the two Dutch mothers, friends of Ms van Ewijk, and they confirmed their accounts with this journalist.

A German woman told The Times that she acquired Mr Meijer’s sperm from Cryos; although he donated under a pseudonym, she was able to find out his real name. In 2019, she received a letter from Cryos informing her that her donor “had donated in countries outside of Denmark, thus breaking the contract he had with Cryos to donate exclusively to our sperm bank.”

The letter added: “This means that the donor would have had more pregnancies than the pregnancies recorded in our system.” The company also notified Danish health authorities, the letter says, and has stopped distributing his semen.

In an e-mail, Mr Meijer said he did not recall being informed that it was forbidden to donate at other clinics: “The clinics carried out intensive health tests and interviews and genetics and passed them all but I can’t clearly remember this procedure to say anything. about that. “In a second email, he said:” There was no strict agreement between sperm banks (until recently) to verify if donors had made donation elsewhere. “

Contacted for comment, Peter Reeslev, CEO of Cryos, insisted that a Cryos donor could not have signed up without being aware of the exclusivity clause. “NO,” he wrote in an email. “Donors sign and contractually agree not to donate to tissue establishments other than Cryos previously and agree not to donate sperm to other sperm banks / tissue centers at the future as well. “

He added: “Generally speaking, Cryos dissociates itself from any form of serial sperm donation due to the importance of not exceeding national pregnancy quotas” in each country to which they send sperm.

Categories
Travel News

Former FBI Lawyer Who Changed Email In Russia Case Sentenced To Probation

Former FBI lawyer who altered his email in Russia is sentenced to probation Judge rejected prosecutors’ request to impose jail time on Kevin Clinesmith, who admitted to treating an email used to help authorize eavesdropping on a former Trump campaign aide.

Categories
Travel News

Washakie County, Wyoming Covid Case and Risk Tracker

By Jordan Allen, Sarah Almukhtar, Aliza Aufrichtig, Anne Barnard, Matthew Bloch, Sarah Cahalan, Weiyi Cai, Julia Calderone, Keith Collins, Matthew Conlen, Lindsey Cook, Gabriel Gianordoli, Amy Harmon, Rich Harris, Adeel Hassan, Jon Huang, Danya Issawi, Danielle Ivory, KK Rebecca Lai, Alex Lemonides, Allison McCann, Richard A. Oppel Jr., Jugal K. Patel, Alison Saldanha, Kirk Semple, Julie Walton Shaver, Anjali Singhvi, Charlie Smart, Mitch Smith, Albert Sun, Derek Watkins, Timothy Williams, Jin Wu, and Karen Yourish. Reporting was provided by Jeff Arnold, Ian Austen, Mike Baker, Ellen Barry, Samone Blair, Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs, Aurelien Breeden, Elisha Brown, Emma Bubola, Maddie Burakoff, Alyssa Burr, Christopher Calabrese, Zak Cassel, Robert Chiarito , Izzy Colón, Matt Craig, Yves De Jesus, Brendon Derr, Brandon Dupré, Melissa Eddy, John Eligon, Timmy Facciola, Bianca Fortis, Matt Furber, Robert Gebeloff, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Matthew Goldstein, Grace Gorenflo, Rebecca Griesbach, Benjamin Guggenheim, Barbara Harvey, Lauryn Higgins, Josh Holder, Jake Holland, Jon Huang, Anna Joyce, John Keefe, Ann Hinga Klein, Jacob LaGesse, Alex Lim, Eleanor Lutz, Alex Matthews, Patricia Mazzei, Jesse McKinley, Miles McKinley, KB Mensah , Sarah Mervosh, Jacob Meschke, Lauren Messman, Andrea Michelson, Jaylynn Moffat-Mowatt, Steven Moity, Paul Moon, Derek M. Norman, Anahad O’Connor, Ashlyn O’Hara, Azi Paybarah, Elian Peltier, Sean Plambeck, Laney Pope , Elisabetta Povoledo, Cierra S. Queen, Savannah Redl, Scotland Reinhard, Thomas Rivas, Frances Robles, Natasha Rodriguez, Jess Ruderman, Kai Schultz, Alex Schwartz, Emily Schwing, Libby Seline, Sarena Snider, Brandon Thorp, Alex Traub, Maura Turcotte, Tracey Tully, Lisa Waananen Jones, Amy Schoenfeld Walker, Jeremy White, Kristine White, Bonnie G. Wong, Tiffany Wong, Sameer Yasir and John Yoon. Data acquisition and additional work provided by Will Houp, Andrew Chavez, Michael Strickland, Tiff Fehr, Miles Watkins, Josh Williams, Shelly Seroussi, Rumsey Taylor, Nina Pavlich, Carmen Cincotti, Ben Smithgall, Andrew Fischer, Rachel Migliozzi, Alastair Coote , Steven Speicher, Hugh Mandeville, Robin Berjon, Thu Trinh, Carolyn Price, James G. Robinson, Phil Wells, Yanxing Yang, Michael Beswetherick, Michael Robles, Nikhil Baradwaj, Ariana Giorgi, Bella Virgilio, Dylan Momplaisir, Avery Dews, Bea Malsky and Ilana Marcus.

Additional risk assessment contributions and advice by Eleanor Peters Bergquist, Aaron Bochner, Shama Cash-Goldwasser, and Sheri Kardooni of Resolve to Save Lives.

Categories
Travel News

Weston County, Wyoming Covid Case and Risk Tracker

By Jordan Allen, Sarah Almukhtar, Aliza Aufrichtig, Anne Barnard, Matthew Bloch, Sarah Cahalan, Weiyi Cai, Julia Calderone, Keith Collins, Matthew Conlen, Lindsey Cook, Gabriel Gianordoli, Amy Harmon, Rich Harris, Adeel Hassan, Jon Huang, Danya Issawi, Danielle Ivory, KK Rebecca Lai, Alex Lemonides, Allison McCann, Richard A. Oppel Jr., Jugal K. Patel, Alison Saldanha, Kirk Semple, Julie Walton Shaver, Anjali Singhvi, Charlie Smart, Mitch Smith, Albert Sun, Derek Watkins, Timothy Williams, Jin Wu, and Karen Yourish. Reporting was provided by Jeff Arnold, Ian Austen, Mike Baker, Ellen Barry, Samone Blair, Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs, Aurelien Breeden, Elisha Brown, Emma Bubola, Maddie Burakoff, Alyssa Burr, Christopher Calabrese, Zak Cassel, Robert Chiarito , Izzy Colón, Matt Craig, Yves De Jesus, Brendon Derr, Brandon Dupré, Melissa Eddy, John Eligon, Timmy Facciola, Bianca Fortis, Matt Furber, Robert Gebeloff, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Matthew Goldstein, Grace Gorenflo, Rebecca Griesbach, Benjamin Guggenheim, Barbara Harvey, Lauryn Higgins, Josh Holder, Jake Holland, Jon Huang, Anna Joyce, John Keefe, Ann Hinga Klein, Jacob LaGesse, Alex Lim, Eleanor Lutz, Alex Matthews, Patricia Mazzei, Jesse McKinley, Miles McKinley, KB Mensah , Sarah Mervosh, Jacob Meschke, Lauren Messman, Andrea Michelson, Jaylynn Moffat-Mowatt, Steven Moity, Paul Moon, Derek M. Norman, Anahad O’Connor, Ashlyn O’Hara, Azi Paybarah, Elian Peltier, Sean Plambeck, Laney Pope , Elisabetta Povoledo, Cierra S. Queen, Savannah Redl, Scotland Reinhard, Thomas Rivas, Frances Robles, Natasha Rodriguez, Jess Ruderman, Kai Schultz, Alex Schwartz, Emily Schwing, Libby Seline, Sarena Snider, Brandon Thorp, Alex Traub, Maura Turcotte, Tracey Tully, Lisa Waananen Jones, Amy Schoenfeld Walker, Jeremy White, Kristine White, Bonnie G. Wong, Tiffany Wong, Sameer Yasir and John Yoon. Data acquisition and additional work provided by Will Houp, Andrew Chavez, Michael Strickland, Tiff Fehr, Miles Watkins, Josh Williams, Shelly Seroussi, Rumsey Taylor, Nina Pavlich, Carmen Cincotti, Ben Smithgall, Andrew Fischer, Rachel Migliozzi, Alastair Coote , Steven Speicher, Hugh Mandeville, Robin Berjon, Thu Trinh, Carolyn Price, James G. Robinson, Phil Wells, Yanxing Yang, Michael Beswetherick, Michael Robles, Nikhil Baradwaj, Ariana Giorgi, Bella Virgilio, Dylan Momplaisir, Avery Dews, Bea Malsky and Ilana Marcus.

Additional risk assessment contributions and advice by Eleanor Peters Bergquist, Aaron Bochner, Shama Cash-Goldwasser, and Sheri Kardooni of Resolve to Save Lives.