--:-- [Theme music fades out]
--:-- Shamita Basu: Good morning. It's Tuesday, February 9th. I'm Shamita Basu. And I'm Duarte Giraldino. This is Apple News Today. Each morning, hear about some of the most fascinating stories in the news and how the world's best journalists are covering them.
--:-- Duarte Giraldino: Is it constitutional for the Senate to try a former president? That will be the focus today in day one of the Senate's trial of Donald Trump. And along with a First Amendment argument, it's the crux of Trump's defense.
--:-- Shamita Basu: So what we're going to do right now is Duarte and I are going to do a little mock trial, each take a side. I'm going to take the argument against impeachment. And basically what they're saying here is that the point of impeachment is to remove a sitting president from office. And since Trump is already out of office, the Senate has no jurisdiction here.
--:-- Duarte Giraldino: J. Michael Luttig used to be a federal judge, and he wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post where he agrees with this legal view. He cites the Constitution and argues the Senate lost its legal authority to try Trump on January 20th, the day Biden took office.
--:-- Shamita Basu: OK, and to that, I will point to a counter argument from Chuck Cooper. He is a lawyer, a pretty big deal in conservative circles. He's defended Jeff Sessions and John Bolton, and he writes in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. that the Constitution absolutely does give the Senate the authority here.
--:-- Duarte Giraldino: And his argument is the Senate has the power to do two things. One, remove someone from office, and two, disqualify that person from holding office in the future. So Cooper explains that second thing, disqualification, can only happen if the person no longer holds office. So by that logic, he says, you can't argue that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former office holders.
--:-- Shamita Basu: Hold on for a second. Consider historical precedent, Duarte. Yesterday, we were talking about the New Yorker article written by Harvard professor Jeanne Suk Gerson. Let's go back to that. The first impeachment ever was in 1797 against a sitting senator. The House voted to impeach. The next day, Congress voted to expel him from office so he was no longer a sitting senator. And when it came time for his trial, his attorney argued the Senate lacked jurisdiction. Then the Senate ended up dismissing the case
--:-- Duarte Giraldino: You want to talk precedent? Because I got some precedent for you too. Gerson points out a case that had exactly the opposite outcome. She references something that happened in 1876. William Belknap was impeached. He was the Secretary of War under President Ulysses S. Grant. He resigned from his post just a few minutes before the House voted to impeach him. And still, the House moved forward with impeachment. And so did the Senate. They held a trial.
--:-- Shamita Basu: Clearly, we could keep going on like this for a long time. But the point is, the historical precedent doesn't point squarely in one direction or the other. And the Constitution itself is vague on this point. Ultimately, this is going to come down to how senators view the arguments from Trump's legal defense team. And we know Republicans already cast a vote where 45 of them effectively agreed with Trump's lawyers.
--:-- Duarte Giraldino: If you want to read up on the legal arguments, we'll link to some of the best ones we've seen in our show notes page.
--:-- Shamita Basu: Patricia Mason got sick with COVID-19 last March. She had trouble breathing. She had to be intubated. A doctor told her husband she had a 30% chance of survival. But Mason lived. And now, 10 months later, she's dealing with the aftermath of the virus, brain fog, swollen, painful joints, and a big, huge medical bill. We are talking $1.3 million huge.
--:-- Duarte Giraldino: The LA Times has this story. Now, yes, Mason and her husband do have insurance, so there's some relief there. But even with that help, she's still on the hook for more than $42,000 of that bill. And she says that's money they just don't have.
--:-- Shamita Basu: Many insurance companies waived all out-of-pocket expenses for COVID-19 treatment. But those waivers are voluntary. These companies are not required to do this. And most of these waivers, they don't apply to self-funded plans. That's what Mason has, along with most Americans who get coverage through their jobs. The L.A. Times took a close look at Mason's bill. I mean, they went through it line by line. $166,000 for respiratory services nearly half a million dollars for pharmacy charges and another half million for her stay at the hospital.
--:-- Duarte Giraldino: Her insurance will end up paying for 95 of a lot of this but even 5 on a seven bill I mean that's not pocket change.
--:-- Shamita Basu: And if you wondering what all this means for COVID patients without insurance the federal government covers their medical bills through the CARES Act. But even then, the rules are complicated and hospitals are not required to notify you that your bills are covered. As for Mason and her husband, they're stuck with this bill and they don't know what they're going to do with it. She says she feels lucky to be alive. She hopes one day she'll retire. She says to her husband, maybe we'll pay off a dollar a month for the rest of our lives.
--:-- Duarte Giraldino: New York is planning what some would call a love letter to COVID on Valentine's weekend. the state plans to reopen indoor dining at 25% capacity. This move will also allow people to hold wedding ceremonies with up to 150 people starting in mid-March.
--:-- Shamita Basu: Here's New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. Just a few months ago, he was fiercely defending pandemic lockdown, but now listen to how much he's changed his tune. No pressure, but it's just an idea. get engaged on Valentine's Day, on the restaurants reopening, and March 15th, you can have the wedding. 150 people.
--:-- Duarte Giraldino: New York is not the only state moving in this direction. Michigan, Idaho, Massachusetts, they're all looking to allow more people to gather in tighter spaces. These governors point to data which show cases are dropping, so why not ease up restrictions? So goes their logic. But Caroline Chen at ProPublica spoke with 10 scientists who all say this is not the time to ease up.
--:-- Shamita Basu: First, there's study after study showing that restaurants are one of the easiest places for COVID transmission. And second, there are all these new variants. At the rate COVID is currently spreading in this country, the CDC predicts the so-called UK variant will become the dominant version of COVID in the United States by March. And because it's believed to be 50% more transmissible, the pandemic could quickly go from bad to worse.
--:-- Duarte Giraldino: It could quickly go from bad to far worse which means right now is the absolute worst time to loosen restrictions These same scientists also point out we don't know how the virus will continue to evolve And as new variants emerge, social distancing and vaccination become even more important until things get more under control.
--:-- Shamita Basu: One scientist told Chen that governors who are moving to expand indoor dining right now are, quote, being completely reckless.
--:-- Duarte Giraldino: The main message here, we need to actively tighten up now and reduce our risks even more.
--:-- Shamita Basu: Plain vanilla, sweet vanilla, the flavor is everywhere. It's one of my favorite in desserts, drinks, vanilla ice cream. I love it in baked goods. But did you know a lot of foods we think have vanilla were never even touched by the bean?
--:-- Duarte Giraldino: The Wall Street Journal has a story about a series of class action lawsuits being filed about imitation vanilla flavoring. And it all centers on this one person, a lawyer named Spencer Sheehan, who saw a bottle of A&W root beer. And it says on the packaging made with aged vanilla. Sheehan was skeptical. He knows how expensive vanilla beans are. So he sued A&W. And months later, he filed another lawsuit targeting cream soda for the same offense.
--:-- Shamita Basu: Sheen has done this before. He's a bit of a justice seeker when it comes to food marketing. The Journal points out that this Long Island lawyer has ongoing suits against companies that, for example, sell Hawaiian rolls that were not actually made in Hawaii or that make carrot cake donuts without real carrots. And in these vanilla lawsuits, it's like nobody is safe. Everyone from manufacturers of yogurt to breakfast cereals, even McDonald's. He's suing McDonald's. In some cases have already been thrown out of court, but at least one brand of almond milk ended up paying $3 million in a settlement.
--:-- Duarte Giraldino: So ultimately, lawyers and judges will sort out the legal issues. But for the rest of us, if it tastes like vanilla but doesn't actually contain vanilla, does it matter?
--:-- Shamita Basu: You can find all these stories and more in the Apple News app. And while you're there, check out some of our audio stories. We'll talk with you again tomorrow.
--:-- [Theme music fades in]
