Attorney General William Barr said Thursday that President Trump did the right thing firing Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the U.S. intelligence community who disclosed the whistleblower complaint that ultimately led to impeachment...

Twenty House committee chairs are asking the nation's top federal agency watchdogs for advice on how to protect them from potential retaliation by President Donald Trump for uncovering mismanagement or wrongdoing inside his administration.

The Democratic committee leaders, who include Oversight Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, say they're seeking legislative proposals that could restrict Trump's ability to remove or demote inspectors general for political reasons.

"Unlike any President in modern history, President Trump has engaged in offensive and unjustified attacks against Inspectors General, criticizing them for following the law, and retaliating against them for telling the truth," the chairs wrote in a three-page letter to Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department's inspector general, who leads a committee of fellow watchdogs.

Democrats have been acutely concerned about Trump's handling of inspectors general, and their alarm grew last week when Trump abruptly removed the intelligence community's top watchdog, Michael Atkinson. Trump later bluntly acknowledged he ousted Atkinson over his decision to inform Congress about the existence of a whistleblower report alleging wrongdoing by the president toward Ukraine that led to Trump’s impeachment.

Trump has also spent recent days attacking the Health and Human Services inspector general for a report indicating that hospitals across the country were unprepared for coronavirus — he accused the 21-year veteran of multiple administration of being an Obama appointee. And he sidelined the top watchdog of the newly signed $2 trillion coronavirus law, Glenn Fine, who had been selected by fellow inspectors general to lead oversight of the massive new aid programs.

"The President’s actions not only flout the law, but they signal to other Inspectors General that they could be punished for doing their jobs," the lawmakers write.

Maloney earlier this week proposed legislation that would expand the pool of inspector generals and staff who could lead the coronavirus relief oversight effort, raising the prospect of a push to return Fine to the position. On Friday, the lawmakers also proposed restrictions on Trump's ability to remove inspectors general without "good cause."

In legislation accompanying their letter, they proposed prohibiting the early removal of inspectors general unless they violate rules or laws, are incapacitated, are credibly accused of mismanagement or abuse their authority. They also ask Horowitz for input on any other proposed changed to the law to protect the independence of inspectors general.

The Democrats also raised concerns in their letter about Trump's pick for a newly created inspector general post meant to safeguard a $500 billion Treasury fund established to assist distressed industries in the coronavirus relief law. Trump nominated Brian Miller, who has a track record as an inspector general but most recently served as a lawyer in Trump’s White House. Democrats worry he won't be independent enough from the administration.

"Each one of these actions by the President would raise significant concerns by itself. Together, they reflect a campaign of political retaliation and reward that is antithetical to good government, undermine the proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and degrade the federal government’s ability to function competently," they write.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she's begun discussions with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell about naming the chair of a commission tasked with overseeing President Donald Trump's implementation of the massive new coronavirus relief law.

It’s the first indication that one of the key checks on the president's handling of the $2 trillion package is inching toward functionality.

But in an interview, Pelosi also indicated the choice could be far from imminent. The two are still discussing how to create a short list of candidates, she said.

"Then the leader and I are in a conversation about how we put together a list and come to agreement on somebody who we would both have confidence in," Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday night. "And there are probably plenty of people we could agree on."

The five-member Congressional Oversight Commission, established in the so-called CARES Act — the $2 trillion coronavirus rescue package for hospitals and the economy — is lawmakers' primary tool to monitor the Trump administration's spending decisions, particularly from a $500 billion fund controlled by the U.S. Treasury meant to stabilize crumbling industries and companies. Each Republican and Democratic leader in the House and Senate are empowered to pick one member of the panel, and Pelosi and McConnell (R-Ky.) are charged with jointly picking the chair.

So far though, only Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has announced a selection: Bharat Ramamurti, a former aide to Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Pelosi said she's close to naming her own choice to the commission as well but hasn't settled on a time to announce it.

"I have a very good person in mind," Pelosi said. "I have no idea when that person wants to do it. I have to find that out first."

The Congressional Oversight Commission is one of three primary tools created in the CARES Act meant to oversee the Trump administration's handling of the law. But, like the congressional panel, the other two are not yet functional, even as hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars begin to flow.

One mechanism, a special inspector general for pandemic recovery, has been nominated by Trump and is awaiting Senate confirmation. But with lawmakers out of Washington until at least April 20, and Trump's pick of a White House lawyer for the post generating controversy, it could be weeks before an appointee is on the job.

The most powerful safeguard in the law is a panel of existing federal inspectors general known as the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, charged with monitoring the entirety of the $2 trillion implementation. Though the committee appeared ready to begin operating, Trump upended the preparations when he moved to sideline the chair — former acting Pentagon inspector general Glenn Fine.

Pelosi, meanwhile, said she's still charging forward with a fourth layer of oversight: A House select committee chaired by House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) to streamline the House's own review of the CARES Act implementation. Pelosi has yet to name other members of the panel and indicated Republicans would have an opportunity to pick members as well.

But it's unclear how quickly such a committee might be established. Republicans have indicated they're opposed to Pelosi's proposal, leaving it unlikely to pass with unanimous support while lawmakers are away from Washington. That means it could be weeks or even a month before the House can return to Washington to vote to establish the new committee.

“We will have an oversight committee," Pelosi said. "[Republicans] will be given the opportunity to appoint members to it ... but that will be up to them. But it’s not going to be up to them whether we have it or not. Absolutely, positively not."

Lawmakers are also contemplating a fifth layer of oversight: a long-term commission meant to provide a comprehensive review of the U.S. government's response to the outbreak and the failures that accelerated its impact.

Several competing proposals have been filed, all modeled on the 9/11 Commission that reviewed the run-up to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attack. On Friday, Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, formally introduced his proposal, bringing on both California senators, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, as cosponsors.

In addition, the measure is sponsored by at least two Democrats who hail from closely fought congressional districts: Reps. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) and Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.), as well as a handful of other House members and senators.

Though Republicans have already assailed Schiff's proposal, linking it to his leadership in the impeachment of the president, Schiff's proposal closely mirrors the other bipartisan plans and is based on input from at least one architect of the former 9/11 commission.

Laura Ingraham wants you to have the unrestricted freedom to spread or die from the coronavirus.Over the past several months, Fox News has been an important platform for those seeking to mock expert opinions on the virus, downplay the outbreak’s lethality, and spread anecdotal claims about how to fight it. All seemingly in the service of either absolving President Trump of any potential responsibility for the pandemic’s U.S. toll or to fulfill the network’s single-note, decades-long crusade to blame anything and everything on Democrats and “the media.”But few personalities have approached the global pandemic with as little concern as Ingraham, the longtime conservative pundit with a coveted primetime Fox News spot and one of the most-viewed shows on the network. In front of an audience of millions every evening, Ingraham has displayed a commitment to dismissing concerns about the virus, mocking advice from doctors she disagrees with, and waving away the importance of coronavirus deaths.As COVID-19 kills thousands across the country each day, the Fox News anchor has demanded a “reopening” of the economy at the start of next month, despite numerous warnings from top public health experts about the risks of leaving quarantine mode too early.Doctor Scolds Fox News: It’s ‘Irresponsible’ to Promote Unproven Coronavirus Drug“At some point, the president is going to have to look at Drs. Fauci and Birx and say, we’re opening on May 1,” she wrote in a tweet on Wednesday. “Give me your best guidance on protocols, but we cannot deny our people their basic freedoms any longer.”Late last month, she railed against doctors, saying they should not dictate government health policy and arguing that opening up the economy was more important than the life-saving measures medical professionals had recommended.“You got to imagine the policymakers at some point will hear from the people who are suffering with these job losses in these businesses and say, you know, ‘We have lives as well, and we have to somehow preserve them,’” Ingraham said.Ingraham did identify the obvious—the projections and advice from public health officials have occasionally shifted. But rather than approaching the topic cautiously on her show, or evaluate how our own drastic measures have curtailed the spread of the virus, she has impatiently drawn the conclusion that any number of deaths below a catastrophic 100,000 is a sign that experts ought to be ignored in favor of a robust economic return (when that, too, seems highly unlikely). Earlier this month, the Fox News star questioned the social-distancing decisions that have slowed down the economy, noting that “hundreds of thousands of Americans die every year from horrific things.” And during one Tuesday evening segment, Ingraham declared that although she believed that “every life matters,” the U.S. may be too overzealous in its social-distancing measures. “It is worth asking, is it not, what would our response have been and would our response have been less damaging to the economy, and to the lives of all of you millions of Americans, if we had had more accurate models from the start?” she said. “And shouldn’t this experience make us less willing to rely on the same experts to help determine when and how we should reopen our economy?”Indeed, there has been a theme for Ingraham. Loss of life, overcrowded hospitals, and an unnecessarily prolonged pandemic are of seemingly little concern.Instead, the virus has been just another excuse to beat up on the show’s recurring punching bags: media and Democrats. In early March, Ingraham compared virus fears from both groups to impeachment and the special investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, saying such concerns were merely attempts to “stoke panic” and undermine Trump. At the time, she didn’t have much to say about actual coronavirus deaths, but she did have plenty to say about an imaginary universe in which Hillary Clinton was president and the virus would have been a “nightmare.”Perhaps sensing the urgency of the outbreak last month, network brass seemingly attempted to crack down on such outrageous coverage, benching and eventually parting ways with Fox Business Network primetime host Trish Regan after she declared coronavirus fears to be an “impeachment scam.” Fox Business Ditches Trish Regan After Coronavirus ‘Impeachment Scam’ RantBut Regan’s bonkers monologue was delivered to a substantially smaller audience than the three-million nightly viewers Ingraham has enjoyed during the crisis. And Ingraham’s campaign of disinformation and obfuscation has been far more sustained and, at every step, directly flown in the face of not just public-health expertise but the guidelines set forth by her own bosses.Even after much of the U.S. began to shut down to fight the virus’ spread, and Fox News brass advised network staff to work from home and banned non-essential business travel, Ingraham tweeted that it was actually a “great time to fly if not in at-risk population.” (She deleted the tweet days later without any explanation).A number of Fox News employees in New York and D.C.—including Fox & Friends Weekend host Jedediah Bila, and one woman whose family said she had to be intubated—have also tested positive for the virus and, according to New York Times media columnist Ben Smith, several of Ingraham’s own staffers have been quarantined with suspected COVID-19 cases.And yet, even as the virus hits closer to home, Ingraham’s concerns could hardly be less disdainful. Despite a number of journalists having died from the virus, and many more having lost their jobs as a direct result of the resultant economic slowdown, Ingraham has fallen back on one of the laziest tropes of right-wing punditry by claiming the “liberal media” is rooting for death.“They like this crisis point and they really don’t want things to go back to normal, and that a lot of them seem—as the news comes in that might be slightly better than we thought, they’re angrier and grumpier than they should be,” Ingraham said earlier this month, with no recognition of the mourning many news organizations have already had for current and former colleagues who’ve died from the virus. “It’s odd.”Instead of reflecting on her potentially life-threatening advice, Ingraham has only doubled down and, in recent days, settled on a new bogeyman for her audience: egghead doctors with their cautious statements, models, projections, and warnings about the virus.Despite medical experts like Dr. Fauci urging Fox News hosts to be “careful” when touting hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus cure, Ingraham has taken up the mantle of the drug’s most public booster, at one point privately urging the president to promote it. Twitter Deletes Laura Ingraham’s ‘Misleading’ Post Touting Coronavirus CureOn multiple occasions, she misrepresented the credentials of a doctor to boost his anecdotal claim of the drug giving one patient a “Lazarus”-like resurrection at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. The doctor does not actually work at that hospital, and while Fox News quietly buried a digital correction to her claim, Twitter eventually forced her to delete her post on the matter.On Monday afternoon, former Harvard Medical professor and renowned HIV/AIDS researcher Dr. William Haseltine complained to Ingraham’s colleague Dana Perino that it is “irresponsible” and “sad to me that people were promoting that drug” which, “at very best… will have a very mild effect on changing the course of the disease, if it has any effect at all.” In return, on her Tuesday show, Ingraham mocked the doctor, calling his logic “disgusting.” The Fox primetime star further ranted against medical experts who have preached caution on miracle cures, claiming that their objections are “merely partisan attacks in disguise.” In Ingraham’s mind, any doctor who disagrees with her is merely trying to attack President Trump. “I see right through their motives.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

Even in the midst of a global pandemic and economic collapse, President Donald Trump is charging ahead on his mission to purge his administration of watchdogs who are tasked with exposing waste, fraud, and abuse. And as he goes about this mission, he’s leaning on a 29-year-old loyalist once exiled from the Trump administration for a reported gambling problem, as well as a cadre of conservative firebrands who have fed his paranoia that government careerists are trying to destroy him.Early this month, Trump fired Michael Atkinson, inspector general of the intelligence community, who had been asked to handle the anonymous whistleblower complaint last year that triggered the president’s impeachment at the hands of House Democrats. On Monday, the president used his daily coronavirus press briefing at the White House to take swipes at Christi Grimm, a Department of Health and Human Services inspector general, after being asked about her report documenting the “severe shortages of testing supplies” in certain U.S. hospitals during the coronavirus crisis. On Tuesday, the news broke that Trump had replaced Glenn Fine, an acting Pentagon inspector general who had been assigned to oversee $2 trillion in coronavirus relief money.Those actions are just the beginning of Trump’s plans to remake much of the federal government by appointing Trump-supportive partisans, including inspector general posts, four administration sources say. And they reflect the degree to which the president’s obsession with purging and denigrating his perceived enemies within the government continues to animate him, even as the White House struggles to respond to the coronavirus outbreaks and the increasing number of deaths throughout the country.For the task, Trump has increasingly leaned on the White House Presidential Personnel Office (PPO), headed by recently rehired Trump aide John McEntee. In the past two months, Trump and McEntee have discussed the topic of replacing inspectors general—a number of whose nominations require approval by the Senate—along with various other positions in the federal government. The president has made clear that he is adamant about quickly filling those posts (there are more than 70 such watchdogs across the government) with those more submissive to him and ousting appointees he often baselessly lambasts as “corrupt,” according to a senior administration official.McEntee, Trump’s former presidential body man and a 2016 campaign veteran, was fired two years ago from his White House job by then-Chief of Staff John Kelly, reportedly for an excessive online gambling habit and related tax issues that had hindered him from getting a proper security clearance. Still, he was given a soft landing at the 2020 Trump campaign and remained beloved by the president, the Trump family, and senior Trump staffers who considered him part of “the originals,” a term affectionately used to describe longtime confidants and advisers. Late last year, it was reported that McEntee would head back to the White House for his new gig, with Kelly long out of the picture. And he was given a broad mandate by Trump when he arrived, staffing up with those he trusted, including a college senior as one of his chief deputies.Even within that tight clique of “originals,” the president views McEntee as one of his most trusted lieutenants and has specifically tasked him with being a point man on staff purges for, at  a minimum, the rest of Trump’s first term in office. And McEntee takes the perceived disloyalty to the president just as personally, or perhaps more, than the president himself. Unlike Trump, who can be chummy with Democrats and reporters even as he decries them publicly, McEntee doesn’t have an off switch, those who know him say.“Bashing the press is fashionable in Trumpworld, but a lot of people are faking it. Not Johnny. He genuinely believes your only agenda is taking down Trump,” said a former White House official.The work being carried out by the president, McEntee, and other top officials has started sending shockwaves through various federal agencies and departments. Two officials with knowledge of the situation tell The Daily Beast that they view the White House’s efforts to target inspectors general as part of an ongoing campaign to root out individuals perceived to be disloyal to Trump. “IGs aren’t supposed to be employees of the Trump Organization,” another U.S. official said. “But it’s clear that the president thinks they should be… It’s grotesque.”As part of a broader effort to gather intelligence on allegedly disloyal administration officials, McEntee’s office has relied on outside advice and research from conservative operatives and Trump allies about which inspectors general and senior officials to look into, the sources added. McEntee’s office has also reached out to the offices of GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill for guidance, one of those officials said.Purging inspectors general who show insufficient subservience to Trump has been a longtime obsession of several key Trump allies. Groundswell, a right-wing activist network headed by activist Ginni Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, has pushed memos to the president with suggestions for how he can remake the federal government by staffing it to the hilt with Trump fanboys. Tony Shaffer, a retired lieutenant colonel and member of the Trump 2020 media advisory board, posted to Twitter on Thursday: “Fine & Atkinson are the protectors of the Deep State… they all need to be replaced.”And Tom Fitton, who helms the right-wing watchdog group Judicial Watch, helped spearhead a lawsuit in December demanding emails and texts from Atkinson. Fitton is a regular guest on some of the Fox News shows that Trump frequently watches and from which he takes cues. Asked if he’d been in touch with PPO or anyone else in the White House, Fitton wouldn’t confirm or deny “any conversations with the White House that may or may not have happened” but said in a brief interview on Thursday that it is his opinion that “President Trump should fire all the IGs he didn’t appoint.” Fitton added that it’s his read that the president wants “fresh blood” and deserves to have an administration staffed with inspectors general who are “more in sync with him and who are as aggressive as he is.”But while Trump is being egged on to find “fresh blood,” others in his party have grown nervous about the gutting of one of the few potential oversight mechanisms still in existence. The ousting of Atkinson in particular has raised questions about the president’s thinking and motivations during one of the worst global pandemics in history. Over the past several days the president has drawn scrutiny from Democratic and Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who are demanding answers from the White House about why Atkinson was fired. And the matter might not end there. A Democratic aide familiar with the situation told The Daily Beast that several House committees are in the process of strategizing on oversight efforts related to Trump’s efforts to purge the administration’s top watchdogs.Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

(Bloomberg) -- South Korea is the first major country to hold a general election in the throes of a coronavirus crisis. That may turn out to be a boost for its president, Moon Jae-in.The election for all 300 National Assembly seats comes as Moon basks in the glow of global praise for South Korea’s approach to getting one of the world’s worst outbreaks under control without resorting to the most punitive measures. When early voting got underway Friday, the country reported 27 new coronavirus cases over the past 24 hours, the fewest in about seven weeks.The easing Covid-19 tally has helped Moon’s Democratic Party of Korea rebuild support battered by an economic slowdown, corruption scandals involving presidential aides and resurgent tensions with North Korea. The turnaround is all the more remarkable because Moon had faced criticism for a lax approach after the epidemic began in neighboring China, having predicted that the virus would be terminated “before long” -- only to see cases spike days later.“It looked like Moon’s party was headed for a complete defeat in the election amid a fragile economic recovery,” said Kim Man-heum, head of the Korea Academy of Politics and Leadership and the author of several books on Korean politics. “Then came the coronavirus outbreak, which swallowed up all other controversies like a black hole, leaving only the government’s out-performance in the worldwide Covid-19 war visible.”The vote comes about halfway through Moon’s single, five-year term, a point when an electoral defeat made his predecessor, former President Park Geun-hye, a lame duck and ultimately paved the way for her impeachment and removal. While a win by the conservative United Future Party could open Moon to similar peril, victory by the Democratic Party would free his hand to set up a successor.If Moon can win the election without contributing to a subsequent spike in infections, he may also provide a road map for other leaders seeking to navigate a period of unprecedented economic and social upheaval. Places from U.S. states to Singapore have been currently re-evaluating their political calendars and election practices as surging coronavirus outbreaks consume the public debate and make the democratic exercises of campaigning and voting dangerous.How Kim Jong Un Keeps Advancing His Nuclear Program: QuickTakeIn South Korea, candidates have campaigned in masks and relied more heavily on video messages to reach voters. People who visit the polls will be asked to stand at least one meter (3 feet) apart, cover their faces, wear disposable gloves and be ready to submit to temperature checks. Voting booths will be subject to frequent disinfection.The decision to go ahead with voting contrasts with U.S. states that have delayed presidential primaries and France, which suspended some local elections after cases began to multiply. Singapore has held off on calling an expected vote as it orders people to stay in their homes to avoid spreading the disease. Poland plans to conduct its May 10 presidential election by mail-in ballot.The timing of South Korea’s vote appears to be working in Moon’s favor. His focus on mass testing and isolation of the sick to corral coronavirus clusters has been credited with a sharp slowdown in infection increases. While South Korea once had the second-largest case tally outside China, it was the 17th globally as of Friday, with just over 10,000 cases, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University and Bloomberg News.Moon was among the first people to cast ballots when two days of early voting started Friday. As of 10 a.m., 2.5% of the registered voters had gone to the polls, compared with 1.2% as of the same time on the first day in the previous general election four years ago, according to the national election committee. The turnout was the lowest in Daegu, South Korea’s epicenter for the virus spread.A Gallup Korea poll released last week, before restrictions on publishing poll results took effect Thursday, showed that the Democratic Party was leading the opposition 41% to 23%. Still, the complexity of South Korea’s vote and a history of surprises like Park’s shock defeat in 2016 make predictions difficult.More than 1,100 candidates from 21 political parties have signed up for 253 constituencies with direct elections. Another 300 candidates are fighting for 47 seats decided by support for the parties.“The results are often a surprise because opinion polls fail to capture each candidate’s competitiveness,” said Kim, of the Korea Academy of Politics and Leadership.Heavy HittersThe coronavirus crisis has loomed large in a closely watched race in central Seoul, a political proving ground that has produced three future presidents and is sometimes called South Korea’s “No. 1 district.” The contest features two former prime ministers -- Lee Nak-yon, of the Democratic Party, and opposition leader Hwang Kyo-ahn -- in what could be a preview of the 2022 presidential election.“Grabbing a victory here is like winning nationwide support,” said Hwang in a written reply to questions. “Only a landslide win would empower us to stop the ruling power’s policies.”Hwang’s party is pushing to take a tough line with North Korea, scrap Moon’s decision to raise the minimum wage and cut back on regulations on business.Lee declined to be interviewed. Beside pushing through a dramatic wage increase, Moon has tightened rules on urban redevelopment to rein in a property bubble and sought to wean the economy away from nuclear energy in favor of hydrogen and solar power.The Democratic Party is predicting that it will win at least 130 seats, while the United Future Party forecasts that it will take between 110 and 130 seats, according to Yonhap.However, surveys have shown about one out of five voters are undecided or unwilling to say whom they support. The threat of infection at polling station only adds to the uncertainty.“It’s highly likely to be an extremely polarized election,” said Park Won-ho, who teaches voting behavior at Seoul National University. “Only those willing to pay for the cost of a possible infection will come to the polls, which will result in over-sampling” of voters on the extreme right and left, Park said.(Updates with details on early voting)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

He was also tied up at campaign rallies, jamming people together, says Lincoln Project attack video.

A conservative group working against President Trump's reelection that includes George Conway, husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, on Thursday released a video rejecting Trump’s claim that his impeachment earlier...