Fauci Suggests Downplaying COVID Contributed To ‘Building Distrust’ In Public Health Agencies

Dr. Anthony Fauci in a recent interview addressed a growing distrust in public health agencies as the coronavirus continues to rage across the country and the message from President Donald Trump remains one of almost nonchalant resignation to a virus that he has suggested will — as if by magic — disappear.

The infectious-disease expert remarked on the “building distrust” toward government health officials during a taped interview with the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency made public earlier this week and first reported by the Project on Government Oversight.

“We’ve got to admit it, those of us in government, all of us, you and I and all of the people that work for me, and all the people that work for you, that there is a building distrust now in the transparency of what we do,” Fauci told the group of government watchdogs, adding: “It’s the elephant in the room.”

Fauci said that confidence in public health recommendations depends on transparency.

“If you’re going to make scientific-based public health recommendations, everything has got to be transparent,” the public health expert said.

“Otherwise once you lose the confidence of people, they don’t believe what you’re saying or they believe you’re holding things back or they believe there’s a political motivation to things,” he added. 

The comments come as President Trump has repeatedly misled the public about the severity of the coronavirus, minimizing its impact and potential dangers for months as thousands of Americans contracted and died from the virus. In an apparent effort to regain footing in the presidential election that is now just weeks away, President Trump has repeatedly sought to paint a rosier picture of his handling of a virus that has now killed more than 221,000 people in the United States.

“The issue that people say you don’t want to alarm people is totally nonsense,” Fauci said, adding: “We’re a pretty strong country. We can handle the truth.”

The remark follows repeated accusations from President Trump in July that Fauci was “a bit of an alarmist.” In September he falsely suggested that the nation was rounding the final turn on the COVID-19 crisis, even as cases continued to surge and Fauci was encouraging Americans to “hunker down” in preparation for what might be a challenging winter with cases far from contained around the country.

Even after his own diagnosis with coronavirus, Trump has peddled mistruths about the disease, suggesting after he was treated with a cocktail of steroids and experimental drugs that he hadn’t really needed them and that immunity to the virus was guaranteed after someone is infected with coronavirus and recovers.

Fauci, who has directed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for 36 years, has far-reaching experiences with responding to public health crises —  from HIV/AIDS in the 1980s to Zika more recently.

“If you go back over outbreaks in the past, the one thing that has always prevailed as the things that make things work is when people are open and honest and don’t hold information back,” he said, later adding: “we should come back and always tell the truth.”

Intel Officials Say Iran Is Responsible For Emails Aimed At Intimidating Dem Voters

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials have accused Iran of being behind a flurry of emails sent to Democratic voters in multiple battleground states that appeared to be aimed at intimidating them into voting for President Donald Trump.

The officials did not lay out specific evidence for how they came to pinpoint Iran, but the activities attributed to Tehran would mark a significant escalation for a country some cybersecurity experts regard as a second-rate player in online espionage. The announcement was made late Wednesday at a hastily called news conference 13 days before the election.

The allegations underscored the U.S. government’s concern about efforts by foreign countries to influence the election by spreading false information meant to suppress voter turnout and undermine American confidence in the vote. Such direct attempts to sway public opinion are more commonly associated with Moscow, which conducted a covert social media campaign in 2016 aimed at sowing discord and is again interfering this year, but the idea that Iran could be responsible suggested that those tactics have been adopted by other nations, too.

“These actions are desperate attempts by desperate adversaries,” said John Ratcliffe, the government’s top intelligence official, who, along with FBI Director Chris Wray, insisted that the U.S. would impose costs on any foreign countries that interfere in the 2020 U.S. election and that the integrity of the election is still sound.

“You should be confident that your vote counts,” Wray said. “Early, unverified claims to the contrary should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.”

The two officials called out Russia and Iran for having obtained voter registration information, though such data is sometimes easily accessible and there was no allegation either country had hacked a database for it. Iran used the information to push out spoofed emails, officials said, and created a video that Ratcliffe said falsely suggested that voters could cast fraudulent ballots from overseas.

Wray and Ratcliffe did not describe the emails linked to Iran, but officials familiar with the matter said the U.S. has linked Tehran to messages sent to Democratic voters in at least four states, including battleground locations like Pennsylvania, Florida and Arizona. The emails falsely purported to be from the far-right group Proud Boys and warned that “we will come after you” if the recipients didn’t vote for Trump.

Though Democratic voters were targeted, Ratcliffe said the spoofed emails were intended to hurt Trump in the contest against Democrat Joe Biden, though he did not elaborate on how. It would not be the first time that the Trump administration has said Tehran is working against the Republican president.

An intelligence assessment released in August said: “Iran seeks to undermine U.S. democratic institutions, President Trump, and to divide the country in advance of the 2020 elections. Iran’s efforts along these lines probably will focus on online influence, such as spreading disinformation on social media and recirculating anti-U.S. content.”

A spokesman for Iran’s mission to the United Nations, Alireza Miryousefi, denied Tehran had anything to do with the alleged voter intimidation.

“Unlike the U.S., Iran does not interfere in other country’s elections,” Miryousefi wrote on Twitter. “The world has been witnessing U.S.’ own desperate public attempts to question the outcome of its own elections at the highest level.”

Iran’s Foreign Ministry summoned the Swiss ambassador on Thursday over the allegations. The Swiss Embassy has overseen America’s interests in Tehran since the aftermath of the 1979 hostage crisis.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran, while rejecting the allegations and the fake reports, again emphasizes that there’s no difference for Tehran which candidate goes to the White House,” the ministry said in a statement.

Trump, speaking at a rally in North Carolina, made no reference to the announcement, but he repeated a familiar campaign assertion that Iran is opposed to his reelection. He promised that if he wins another term he will swiftly reach a new accord with Iran over its nuclear program.

“Iran doesn’t want to let me win. China doesn’t want to let me win,” Trump said. “The first call I’ll get after we win, the first call I’ll get will be from Iran saying, ‘Let’s make a deal.'”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, said the “disturbing” threats cut to the heart of the right to vote.

“We cannot allow voter intimidation or interference efforts, either foreign or domestic, to silence voters’ voices and take away that right,” they said in a statement.

Asked about the emails during an online forum earlier Wednesday, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar said she lacked specific information. “I am aware that they were sent to voters in multiple swing states and we are working closely with the attorney general on these types of things and others,” she said.

While state-backed Russian hackers are known to have infiltrated U.S. election infrastructure in 2016, there is no evidence that Iran has ever done so, and it was not clear how officials were able to identify Iran so quickly.

The operation represented something of a departure in cyber-ops for Iran, which sought for the first time on record to undermine voter confidence. Iran’s previous operations have been mostly propaganda and espionage.

A top cyberthreat analyst, John Hultquist of FireEye, said the striking development marked “a fundamental shift in our understanding of Iran’s willingness to interfere in the democratic process. While many of their operations have been focused on promoting propaganda in pursuit of Iran’s interests, this incident is clearly aimed at undermining voter confidence.”

The voter intimidation operation apparently used email addresses obtained from state voter registration lists, which include party affiliation and home addresses and can include email addresses and phone numbers. Those addresses were then used in an apparently widespread targeted spamming operation. The senders claimed they would know which candidate the recipient was voting for in the Nov. 3 election, for which early voting is ongoing.

Federal officials have long warned about the possibility of this type of operation, as such registration lists are not difficult to obtain.

“These emails are meant to intimidate and undermine American voters’ confidence in our elections,” Christopher Krebs, the top election security official at the Department of Homeland Security, tweeted Tuesday night after reports of the emails first surfaced.
___
Bajak reported from Boston. Associated Press writers Christina A. Cassidy in Atlanta; Michael Balsamo, Colleen Long and Zeke Miller in Washington; Amir Vahdat in Tehran, Iran; and Jon Gambrell in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, contributed.
___
AP’s Advance Voting guide brings you the facts about voting early, by mail or absentee from each state: https://interactives.ap.org/advance-voting-2020/.

Obama Blasts Trump For Treating Presidency ‘Like A Reality Show’

Former President Barack Obama delivered a biting speech against President Trump during a drive-in campaign event for his former VP Joe Biden in Philadelphia on Wednesday. Continue reading “Obama Blasts Trump For Treating Presidency ‘Like A Reality Show’”

Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats To Boycott ‘Sham’ Amy Coney Barrett Vote

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will boycott Thursday’s vote on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, calling it a “sham process from the beginning.”

Continue reading “Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats To Boycott ‘Sham’ Amy Coney Barrett Vote”

What We Know About Rudy Giuliani’s Intimate Appearance In The ‘Borat’ Sequel

Rudy Giuliani apparently left out a few key details when he said in July that he’d called the cops on Sacha Baron Cohen. 

Continue reading “What We Know About Rudy Giuliani’s Intimate Appearance In The ‘Borat’ Sequel”

Not Over Till It’s Over

Two points on the latest polls. The first is that President Trump does appear to have regained a small measure of support in recent days – very small and it still leaves him in landslide loss territory but it seems to show up as some real movement. At the same time, I keep seeing polls in which the “likely voter” screen shows a slightly better result than the “registered voter” screen. Most of you know that that inverts the rule of thumb in which Republicans – who tend to be older, wealthier, more fixed in communities – do better on likely voter screens. This suggests a non-trivial turnout advantage.

Veterans Affairs Secretary Headlines GOP Fundraiser as COVID-19 Cases Surge

This story first appeared at ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie headlined a fundraiser for the North Carolina Republican Party last week, taking time away from his job leading the government’s second-largest agency at a moment when COVID-19 cases are surging in VA hospitals.

Though legal, campaigning by cabinet secretaries is a departure from historical norms. Nevertheless, it’s become standard practice in the administration of President Donald Trump. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has hit the campaign trail for Trump, and several other cabinet members recently visited Iowa. Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, is also campaigning in North Carolina. Trump himself has routinely blurred politics with official functions, most prominently by hosting the Republican convention on the White House lawn, and he’s brushed off more than a dozen staff violations of the federal Hatch Act, which limits political activity by government employees.

Wilkie, in particular, was already under fire for frequent trips that appear to have partisan agendas. In a letter last week, the top Democrats on the House and Senate veterans committees accused Wilkie of using taxpayer-funded travel to boost Trump and other Republican candidates.

“Leaders at VA have historically risen above partisan politics,” Senate veterans committee ranking member Jon Tester of Montana and House committee chairman Mark Takano of California said in their letter to Wilkie. “Furthermore, efforts to engage in overtly political activity may have come at the expense of legitimate functions of the department’s mission.”

The letter highlighted Wilkie’s previous official trips to North Carolina, Maine and Montana for appearances with GOP senators in tough reelection races. The partisan tilt of the Montana trip was especially pronounced because it included no events with Tester despite his key post on the Senate panel that oversees the VA.

Wilkie’s latest visit to North Carolina, his home state, was not part of an official trip, according to the VA’s response to a Freedom of Information Act request. That indicates his fundraiser appearance wasn’t paid for by taxpayers. Wilkie’s spokeswoman declined to say who footed the bill for his travel or why he was in North Carolina on a weekday instead of at his job.

“He attended this event as a private citizen,” spokeswoman Christina Noel said.

The party’s financial disclosures, which might show donations and expenditures connected to the event, are not yet available for that time period. The North Carolina GOP’s finance director, Amanda Parrish, didn’t respond to messages seeking comment.

The event took steps to comply with the Hatch Act. The invitation, obtained by ProPublica, omitted Wilkie’s official titles, referring to him as “honorable” (a general signifier for people who have been Senate confirmed). The invitation also said “his participation is not a solicitation for funds,” but it listed suggested donations ranging from $250 to $2,500.

The email accompanying the fundraiser invitation said the organizers wanted “this event jam-packed (within CDC guidelines).” But a photo posted on Facebook by the state party chairman showed people indoors less than 6 feet apart and not wearing masks.

Noel declined to comment on what public health measures Wilkie observed to participate in the event.

Other political figures who attended, including state Rep. Holly Grange and Trump campaign organizer Matt Dula, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

From North Carolina, Wilkie traveled to Arizona, Utah and Colorado for what appeared to be official functions, according to posts on his Twitter account.

A former aide to North Carolina’s endangered incumbent senator, Thom Tillis, and former Sen. Jesse Helms, Wilkie is widely viewed as aspiring to elected office in the state. North Carolina’s other senator, Richard Burr, is not seeking reelection in 2022. Noel didn’t respond to a question about Wilkie’s political ambitions.

Wilkie has faced criticism for appearing disengaged from the VA’s critical programs. He’s also under investigation by the department’s inspector general for allegations, which Wilkie has denied, that he attempted to collect dirt on a congressional staffer who said she was sexually assaulted in a VA hospital. The results of the probe are expected soon.

The VA hospital system currently has almost 4,500 active cases of COVID-19 (including veterans and employees), a 70% increase from a month ago. More than 3,700 VA patients have died of the virus.

Veterans are a key constituency for Trump, a favorite topic in his tweets and at rallies. The VA is accommodating more political events this year by relaxing a long-standing policy that discourages site visits by political candidates close to an election. Noel didn’t respond to a question about the change.

Filed under:

 

Trump Allies Mash Hunter Biden And QAnon Conspiracy Theories Into One Horrible Mess

The out-on-bail former campaign chairman for President Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, teased the coming “storm” gathering around Hunter Biden to viewers of his YouTube show Tuesday night. 

Continue reading “Trump Allies Mash Hunter Biden And QAnon Conspiracy Theories Into One Horrible Mess”

The Good But Also Ominous News From The Supreme Court About Voting in Pennsylvania

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.

The Supreme Court gave good news Monday night by doing nothing. The Court turned away a request by the Republican National Committee to prevent Pennsylvania from counting mail-in ballots that are received up to three days after Election Day. That means that more people’s legitimate votes will be counted, which is an unqualified win for democracy.

But that good news may not last. The state of play after Election Day will involve the confluence of state and federal constitutional law, a hotly contested Supreme Court case from just five years ago, another one from over a century ago, and the unprecedented possibility of a new Supreme Court Justice being seated days before a presidential election on which the Court may have to rule just weeks later.

Until this fall, if a Pennsylvania voter mailed her ballot on the day before Election Day but it didn’t arrive at the election board until the day after Election Day, that vote wouldn’t be counted. In light of the extraordinary circumstances surrounding an election in a pandemic with millions of mail-in ballots expected to be cast through a hobbled Postal Service, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended the deadline by three days. It based its decision on the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution: “Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right to suffrage.” (By the way, that sounds like a great addition to our federal Constitution.)

But even though the Court denied the Republicans’ request to put the state court decision on hold, four Justices said (without elaborating) that they would have gone the other way: Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Which means that the Court was deadlocked at 4-4. Which means, in turn, that the addition of a new Justice Barrett would be the deciding vote.

Monday night’s good news for democracy turns more ominous still because the Supreme Court’s inaction was not a final resolution. It just declined to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for now. Republicans can, and presumably will, ask the Court to step in again in the coming weeks so any mail-in ballots by Pennsylvania voters that were received after Election Day cannot be counted. By then, Judge Barrett might be seated and the conservatives on the Court might thus have the votes to hand the Republicans a victory after all. In light of the President’s unveiled hope and even explicit expectation that Judge Barrett would rule in his favor, it might seem like the fix is in.

The legal arguments the Court is likely to confront in this case will not be about the President, or the pandemic, or the Postal Service. They will be about the truly arcane relationship between state courts and state legislatures in presidential elections: does the Constitution say that the state legislature alone, unfettered by the state courts or even a state’s constitution, gets to decide how to hold presidential elections?

Shockingly, the Constitution does not guarantee the American public the right to vote for president. Instead, the Constitution says that the presidential electors are appointed by each state “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Every state now chooses its electors by popular election, but that wasn’t true until the middle of the 19th century. In other words, your right to vote for president was bestowed by your state legislature.

That doesn’t mean the state legislature can hold the presidential election in whatever way it wants. If a state legislature tried to limit the vote to people from a particular religion, that would undoubtedly violate the First Amendment. Or if it tried to limit the vote to people of a particular race, that would violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The harder question in the Pennsylvania case is whether a state legislature is constrained by its own state constitution in deciding how to hold the election.

The answer depends on how the Court treats one case from 1892 and another case from 2015. The 1892 case, McPherson v. Blacker, says that the Constitution grants state legislatures “plenary control” over the manner in which presidential electors are selected. The Supreme Court seemed to endorse some version of that principal in Bush v. Gore. Smart commentators have called this Republicans’ “boldest and perhaps most dangerous” argument. They’re right to be concerned. After all, the text of the Constitution explicitly mentions the state legislature, not the state courts or the state constitution.

But the McPherson “plenary power” principle runs headlong into a 2015 case about congressional redistricting in Arizona. The Constitution assigns the authority to “prescribe” the “Manner” of elections for the Senators and Representatives from each state to “the Legislature thereof.” That should sound familiar; it’s precisely the same phrase in the Constitution about presidential electors. And the Supreme Court said in the Arizona case: “Nothing in the [Constitution] instructs, nor has this Court ever held, that a state legislature may prescribe regulations on the time, place, and manner of holding federal elections in defiance of provisions of the State’s constitution.”

So that should settle it, right? Just five years ago, the Supreme Court said that under a virtually identical Constitutional provision, state legislatures have to follow state constitutions in setting congressional elections. It stands to reason that Pennsylvania’s state constitution can also constrain how its state legislature sets a presidential election. And according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, its state constitution requires the extension of the mail-in ballot deadline.

Not so fast. There is one last turn in this story. The Supreme Court decided the Arizona case 5-4, with Justice Ginsburg writing for the majority and Chief Justice Roberts issuing a blistering dissent — he who voted, for now, with the liberals in the Pennsylvania case Monday night. Since then, Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and now Ginsburg have been replaced by Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and potentially a new Justice Barrett. That change could be decisive.

A very close presidential election that comes down to late-arriving mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania could thus turn on whether the Supreme Court revisits the Arizona decision on this obscure issue of state and federal constitutional law with a decidedly more conservative lineup of Justices. And so long before Roe v. Wade returns to the Court, Judge Barrett’s views on precedent could decide our democracy’s fate.

 


Matthew A. Seligman is Special Counsel for Election Integrity with the Campaign Legal Center. He is currently teaching a seminar on disputed presidential elections at Harvard Law School.