Field organizers for presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden's 2020 campaign have ratified a collective bargaining agreement with "overwhelming support," the Biden campaign said in a joint statement with Teamsters Local 238.

Why it matters: It's the first time in history a major party's presumptive nominee will employ a campaign staff that's covered under a union agreement, according to Teamsters Local 238 Secretary-Treasurer Jesse Case. The deal includes overtime for work past 40 hours a week, 100% employer-paid insurance and a six-day workweek.

The agreement also guarantees a $15 per hour minimum wage that will generate "an overall average increase of $1,900 in annual wages for field organizers," according to the campaign.

Biden campaign senior adviser Maju Varghese said in a statement: "We are proud that our campaign continues to live out the values that have defined Vice President Biden's career ... Our hardworking field organizers are no exception, and their efforts are critical to our success at the ballot box this fall."

The big picture: The move comes as political candidates are forced to abandon traditional modes of campaigning as a result of the coronavirus. Tactics like door knocking and rallies are restricted, and organizers are currently working to turnout the vote from home.

WASHINGTON — Indivisible, the influential progressive "resistance" group founded in the wake of President Donald Trump's election, plans to endorse Joe Biden on Monday, its founders told NBC News.

The former vice president was never the group's favored candidate to take on Trump, with a February survey of its members showing that just 6 percent picked Biden among the then-crowded Democratic presidential primary field, well behind Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

But the group's grassroots members and local chapter leaders voted overwhelmingly to support Biden, the apparent Democratic nominee, with Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin calling him "Abraham Lincoln compared to Donald Trump."

Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez addressed the accusation of sexual assault against the party's presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden, comparing the controversy to another that dogged the party's 2016 candidate Hillary Clinton, which some in the party believe contributed to her defeat in that year's election.

"This is like the Hillary emails, because there was nothing there," Perez told ABC's "This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz, referring to the former secretary of state's criticized use of a private email server as he addressed an allegation of sexual assault from Tara Reade, a former staffer who served in Biden’s Washington Senate office for a brief period in 1993. Biden has denied the assault occurred.

In defending the former vice president, Perez cited the "exhaustive" review of Biden conducted by the 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign, which the party chair said did not uncover such an accusation or else the senator from Delaware would not have been selected to join that year's ticket.
https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1256939847778029573

The coronavirus rescue package imposed some oversight of these programs, but when he signed it, Trump said he’d ignore the law and prevent a new inspector general from communicating with Congress. He then appointed a White House loyalist to serve in that role. And just to be sure there was no real accountability, he fired another inspector general independently designated to oversee the bailout.
Both of us have served in Congress overseeing the executive branch. We have also both served in the executive branch and answered to independent oversight. Take it from us: Oversight is vital to an effective democracy and a fair economy, and it’s a threat only if you have something to hide.

When Vice President Joe Biden ran implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, he invited relevant inspectors general to scrutinize his work. In 2010, they concluded that a remarkable 99.8% of awards were free of any hint of fraud, waste or abuse. And Sen. Elizabeth Warren not only led the oversight panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, but she also set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010, where she maintained a strong working relationship with multiple inspectors general, who gave her high marks for her work.

By contrast, Trump seems to think he can direct funding for the response to this crisis based on which politicians are nice to him, which states he’s trying to win in November and which businesses he wants to enrich — all without any accountability. We have a different view.

Taxpayer relief should go to those most in need. Hospitals, essential workers, small businesses, and state and local governments should get the help they need immediately. If large corporations want help, they should agree not to turn around and fire all their workers. The relief bill’s unconscionable tax giveaway that overwhelmingly benefits millionaires should be repealed. But that is not enough.

During the recent presidential primary, both of us called for significant reforms to end Washington corruption and guarantee a government that works for the people. We urgently need those broader reforms now.

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/article242350451.html#storylink=cpy

Publication of the report immediately prompted Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, to ask the key question: “What does Putin have on Trump — personally, politically, financially?”

As Pelosi said: “The findings of the intelligence community cannot be denied…why would he choose to believe what Putin said over the intelligence community?”

Her questions have been asked by many people for more than three years now. Yet, with the November 3 election approaching rapidly, they are as urgent as ever and we still do not have good answers....

The new report — and the new spotlight shed by Pelosi’s pointed question — aims at explaining Trump’s continuing tirades against the “deep state” and his labeling of the U.S.’s national intelligence community as “scum.”

Until the arrival of Trump in the White House, such statements would have been considered as utterly unbecoming, if not implicitly treasonous, for any Republican president.

In modern U.S. political history, they were the trope of radical conspiracy-driven circles on the extreme fringes of the U.S. political equation.

Despite the conclusions by the bipartisan Senate committee and a similar finding by the Inspector-General of the Justice Department and last year by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Trump’s team continues to deny, deride and promote its alternative narrative.