BREAKING: Armed men dressed as security guards claiming to be with the Trump campaign showed up today at the downtown St. Pete early voting location today, according to @VotePinellas Supervisor of Elections Julie Marcus.
"The sheriff told me the persons who were dressed in these security uniforms had indicated to sheriff's deputies that they belonged to a licensed security company and they indicated, and this has not been confirmed yet, that they were hired by the Trump campaign," Marcus said.
Marcus, a Republican, is running to keep her seat after being appointed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in May when longtime supervisor Deborah Clarke retired.
Pinellas Co. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, also a Republican, is running for re-election as well.
8 On Your Side is awaiting a statement from the Trump campaign.
Marcus said Gualtieri assured her there would be deputies at the early voting location tomorrow, which is located at 501 First Ave. North in St. Petersburg.
“The sheriff and I take this very seriously,” Marcus said. “Voter intimidation, deterring voters from voting, impeding a voter’s ability to cast a ballot in this election is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in any way shape, or form."
"I just don’t want to get too deep into the specifics because we’re trying to balance it,” Gualtieri told me. “But I’ll say it’s a combination of uniformed personnel who will be in the area and also we’re gonna use some undercover personnel just to monitor the situation.”
Marcus told @WFLAChip: "I've never seen this before in my 17 years as an election administrator. This activity is absolutely prohibited by Florida law. If we see this kind of activity, we will take immediate action. It's important our voters know it's safe to cast a ballot."
Re: their intentions, Marcus tells @WFLAChip: "I don't want to speculate, all I know is that if a voter feels that this is inappropriate, or feels threatened or intimidated, we need to react to that, and that's what we did today."
The NY Times had 93 questions on Day 1, so we'll start with #94 today, as I may have missed some while doing TV.
94th question, from Sen. @PattyMurray (D-WA):
Can you further clarify the WH counsel's arguments that the subpoenas issued before the impeachment vote were invalid?
@PattyMurray Rep. Lofgren:
House issued rules on January 9, 2019, and the House's standing rules give each committee subpoena power to conduct their business. We have more power after an impeachment has been authorized.
@PattyMurray SOME DRAMA on the Senate floor -- 95th question is from Sen. @RandPaul -- and Chief Justice John Roberts declines to read it.
Question presumably includes outing Whistleblower, as multiple outlets report he tried to do yesterday.
Philbin answers: 1) even if Trump's motive was only personal, it's too subjective to be viable for impeachment 2) if he had any mixed motives, it destroys their case, because Senators can't determine how much was personal vs. public motive
2nd question from (D-NY) Chuck Schumer:
Bolton's book is coming out, can the Senate come to a viable conclusion without hearing from him?
Schiff gives a long answer, but his short answer is no.
Also shows videos of WH counsel arguing to hear "all of the facts"