truthout--2020-05-13--Don’t Expect to See Trump’s Tax Returns Before the Election

Donald Trump claims that while he is president , his pre-presidency financial records can ’ t be subpoenaed and he can ’ t even be investigated for criminal conduct .
The Supreme Court will decide by the end of June whether Trump is indeed beyond the reach of the law .
On May 12 , the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about whether Trump can block subpoenas for his tax and other financial records that predate his presidency .
Although prior presidents made their tax returns public , Trump has steadfastly refused to reveal his .
In 2016 , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ audit ” is complete .
But they remain under wraps .
In April 2019 , three committees of the House of Representatives and the New York district attorney issued subpoenas to banks and financial institutions to obtain Trump ’ s records .
Trump sued to prevent the disclosures .
Even though all four lower courts that considered the issue ruled that the records must be produced , Trump continues to stonewall , claiming in essence he is above the law .
During the oral arguments , the justices disagreed about what standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president can block subpoenas to third parties for records relating to his personal conduct before he took office .
A majority of the justices seemed to reject the argument made by the lawyer for the House of Representatives , that congressional committees have broad authority to obtain a president ’ s personal records .
But they were also skeptical of Trump ’ s argument that he has immunity from state grand jury investigations while he is president .
“ One of the most important takeaways from the oral arguments is that no justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Jay Sekulow , President Trump ‘ s personal lawyer , that the president is entitled to an absolute temporary immunity from a state grand jury investigation into his private conduct before becoming president , ” Stephen Rohde , a scholar of constitutional law , told Truthout .
“ That argument only had an audience of one.
” The justices first took up the cases of Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank .
In April , the House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed documents from Mazars USA LLP , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee was investigating payments of hush money and whether Trump lied about his assets to underpay taxes .
Pursuant to an investigation of whether there was foreign interference in the election , the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Committee on Financial Services subpoenaed documents from Deutsche Bank and Capital One , which had loaned Trump large sums of money .
Both the district court and the Court of Appeals rejected Trump ’ s challenges to the subpoenas .
During the Supreme Court argument , Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional subpoena is valid so long as there is a conceivable legislative purpose and the records are relevant to that purpose.
” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said , however , “ I think , pertinent to a legislative purpose is almost no limiting principle at all.
” Most of the justices appeared to agree .
Patrick Strawbridge , Trump ’ s personal lawyer , suggested a more rigid standard .
He said that when Congress employs its subpoena power against the president , “ it must yield absent any long-standing tradition or particularly compelling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a “ demonstrated need standard.
” Strawbridge charged that “ the committees have not even tried to show any critical legislative need for the documents these subpoenas seek.
” Justice Neil Gorsuch then asked Strawbridge , “ Why should we not defer to the House ’ s view about its own legislative purposes ?
” and Strawbridge replied that Congress ’ s subpoena power was “ an implied power ” that can ’ t be used “ to challenge the structure of government.
” He added that “ a subpoena targeting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge to the separation of powers.
” But Sotomayor warned of a separation of powers problem if the Court were to establish “ a heightened standard or clear statement ” requirement .
She asked Strawbridge whether he was disputing the Intelligence Committee ’ s stated purpose : “ investigation efforts by foreign entities to influence the U.S. political process and related to the financial records.
” Justice Elena Kagan characterized Strawbridge ’ s position as asking the Court “ to put a kind of 10-ton weight on the scales between the President and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Congress to perform oversight and to carry out its functions where the President is concerned.
” Kagan noted that the subpoenas don ’ t request official records , where the president could assert executive privilege , and queried why a lower standard shouldn ’ t apply to personal records .
Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall appeared as amicus curiae ( friend of the court ) during the argument .
Justice Stephen Breyer asked Wall , “ why not apply the standard that is ordinarily applied to every human being in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say : Judge , this is overly burdensome.
” Wall argued that a congressional subpoena for a president ’ s records should be measured by “ a heightened standard.
” When Kavanaugh suggested , “ why not employ the demonstrably critical standard or something like that , ” Douglas Letter , counsel for the House of Representatives , replied that would violate separation of powers .
Kavanaugh stated that the demonstrably critical standard is used when the president invokes executive privilege , but Letter reminded him that this case doesn ’ t involve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business records .
Executive privilege protects the need for confidentiality in presidential communications .
In 1974 , the Court held in United States v. Nixon that there is a qualified executive privilege and Richard Nixon was compelled to produce the Watergate tapes .
“ The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated , specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial , ” the Court ruled unanimously .
Wall complained that the House of Representatives had not explained why it needs the requested documents in order to exercise its legislative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the lower courts .
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg charged that Wall would expect more from Congress than from a patrol officer .
“ To impugn Congress ’ s motive , even the policeman on the beat , if he stops a car and gives the reason that the car went through a stop sign , we don ’ t allow an investigation into what the subjective motive really was .
So , here , you ’ re — you ’ re distrusting Congress more than the cop on the beat , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justices considered during oral argument was Trump v. Vance .
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance , Jr. , issued a subpoena to Mazars USA LLP for personal and business tax returns for a state grand jury investigation of hush money payments before the 2016 election .
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the subpoena for most of the requested records .
Trump ’ s lawyer Jay Sekulow argued that the Court of Appeals decision “ would allow any DA to harass , distract , and interfere with the sitting President.
” He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a state criminal case , citing Article II of the Constitution ( which establishes the executive branch ) and the Supremacy Clause ( that affirms the supremacy of federal over state laws ) .
Sekulow said he wasn ’ t arguing that a grand jury can ’ t investigate the president , just that the president should have immunity while in office .
Chief Justice John Roberts retorted , “ it ’ s okay for the grand jury to investigate , except it can ’ t use the traditional and most effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is the subpoena.
” In 1997 , the Court decided unanimously in Clinton v. Jones that a sitting president does not have immunity from federal civil litigation arising from conduct that occurred before he took office .
Bill Clinton was compelled to give a deposition in Paula Jones ’ s sexual harassment lawsuit against him .
Roberts reminded Sekulow that the Jones Court was “ not persuaded that the distraction in that case meant that discovery could not proceed.
” Jones was a federal civil case and Vance is a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he complained that 2,300 district attorneys could harass the president , Breyer responded , “ of course , in Clinton v. Jones , there might be a million , I don ’ t know , tens of thousands of people who might bring lawsuits.
” Once again , Breyer suggested using the ordinary standard of whether compliance with the subpoena is “ unduly burdensome.
” Kagan echoed Breyer ’ s suggestion .
Gorsuch asked how this is more burdensome than Jones , which “ sought the deposition of the President while he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re seeking records from third-parties.
” Kavanaugh raised the issue of statute of limitations which could prevent prosecution after the president leaves office .
Solicitor General Noel Francisco , who appeared as amicus curiae , argued that the Court should apply the “ special needs standard ” from the Nixon case and not even reach the issue of presidential immunity .
Francisco said the district attorney must show that the requested information is critical to a responsible charging decision , that he can ’ t obtain it elsewhere , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breyer and Sotomayor reminded Francisco that Nixon was an executive privilege case .
Sotomayor suggested a standard of “ harassment and interference , ” in which the court would “ ask whether the investigation is based on credible suspicion of criminal activity and whether the subpoena is reasonably calculated to advance that investigation.
” Carey Dunne , general counsel of the New York County District Attorney ’ s Office , argued for a case-specific analysis .
Once the president establishes that his Article II powers are burdened , the prosecutor must show an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasonable probability that the request would produce relevant information .
Dunne said the lower courts already found that the district attorney had met that standard .
Justice Samuel Alito proposed “ a somewhat more demanding standard , ” where the prosecutor would have to establish that the information can not be obtained from another source and that delay would cause “ serious prejudice to the investigation.
” Not necessary , said Dunne .
“ There ’ s no need here to upend precedent or to write a new rule that undermines federalism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a risk that American presidents , as well as third-parties , could unwittingly end up above the law.
” When the high court issues its decision , we are likely to see several fragmented opinions .
Whatever test ultimately garners five votes , the cases will probably be sent back to the lower courts to apply the new rule .
That could take several months or even years , leaving the matter unresolved until after the 2020 presidential election .
And even if the Supreme Court were to order Trump to release his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confidentially to the grand jury .

The cases will probably be sent back to the lower courts, leaving the matter unresolved until after the 2020 election.
Part of the Series Human Rights and Global Wrongs
Donald Trump claims that while he is president, his pre-presidency financial records can’t be subpoenaed and he can’t even be investigated for criminal conduct. The Supreme Court will decide by the end of June whether Trump is indeed beyond the reach of the law.
On May 12, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about whether Trump can block subpoenas for his tax and other financial records that predate his presidency. Although prior presidents made their tax returns public, Trump has steadfastly refused to reveal his. In 2016, he promised to release them when the purported “audit” is complete. But they remain under wraps.
In April 2019, three committees of the House of Representatives and the New York district attorney issued subpoenas to banks and financial institutions to obtain Trump’s records. Trump sued to prevent the disclosures. Even though all four lower courts that considered the issue ruled that the records must be produced, Trump continues to stonewall, claiming in essence he is above the law.
During the oral arguments, the justices disagreed about what standard should be used to determine when a president can block subpoenas to third parties for records relating to his personal conduct before he took office. A majority of the justices seemed to reject the argument made by the lawyer for the House of Representatives, that congressional committees have broad authority to obtain a president’s personal records. But they were also skeptical of Trump’s argument that he has immunity from state grand jury investigations while he is president.
“One of the most important takeaways from the oral arguments is that no justice appears to accept the extreme argument made by Jay Sekulow, President Trump‘s personal lawyer, that the president is entitled to an absolute temporary immunity from a state grand jury investigation into his private conduct before becoming president,” Stephen Rohde, a scholar of constitutional law, told Truthout. “That argument only had an audience of one.”
Congressional Subpoenas Raise Separation of Powers Concern
The justices first took up the cases of Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank. In April, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed documents from Mazars USA LLP, Trump’s accounting firm, because the committee was investigating payments of hush money and whether Trump lied about his assets to underpay taxes. Pursuant to an investigation of whether there was foreign interference in the election, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Committee on Financial Services subpoenaed documents from Deutsche Bank and Capital One, which had loaned Trump large sums of money.
One of the most important takeaways is that no justice appears to accept the extreme argument that the president is entitled to an absolute temporary immunity from a state grand jury investigation.
Both the district court and the Court of Appeals rejected Trump’s challenges to the subpoenas.
During the Supreme Court argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited the Court’s precedent “that a congressional subpoena is valid so long as there is a conceivable legislative purpose and the records are relevant to that purpose.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, however, “I think, pertinent to a legislative purpose is almost no limiting principle at all.” Most of the justices appeared to agree.
Patrick Strawbridge, Trump’s personal lawyer, suggested a more rigid standard. He said that when Congress employs its subpoena power against the president, “it must yield absent any long-standing tradition or particularly compelling showing of need,” that is, a “demonstrated need standard.”
Strawbridge charged that “the committees have not even tried to show any critical legislative need for the documents these subpoenas seek.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch then asked Strawbridge, “Why should we not defer to the House’s view about its own legislative purposes?” and Strawbridge replied that Congress’s subpoena power was “an implied power” that can’t be used “to challenge the structure of government.” He added that “a subpoena targeting the President’s personal documents is a challenge to the separation of powers.”
But Sotomayor warned of a separation of powers problem if the Court were to establish “a heightened standard or clear statement” requirement. She asked Strawbridge whether he was disputing the Intelligence Committee’s stated purpose: “investigation efforts by foreign entities to influence the U.S. political process and related to the financial records.”
Justice Elena Kagan characterized Strawbridge’s position as asking the Court “to put a kind of 10-ton weight on the scales between the President and Congress and essentially to make it impossible for Congress to perform oversight and to carry out its functions where the President is concerned.”
Kagan noted that the subpoenas don’t request official records, where the president could assert executive privilege, and queried why a lower standard shouldn’t apply to personal records.
Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall appeared as amicus curiae (friend of the court) during the argument. Justice Stephen Breyer asked Wall, “why not apply the standard that is ordinarily applied to every human being in the United States … go to a judge and say: Judge, this is overly burdensome.” Wall argued that a congressional subpoena for a president’s records should be measured by “a heightened standard.”
When the high court issues its decision, we are likely to see several fragmented opinions.
When Kavanaugh suggested, “why not employ the demonstrably critical standard or something like that,” Douglas Letter, counsel for the House of Representatives, replied that would violate separation of powers. Kavanaugh stated that the demonstrably critical standard is used when the president invokes executive privilege, but Letter reminded him that this case doesn’t involve executive privilege because the subpoenas seek financial business records.
Executive privilege protects the need for confidentiality in presidential communications. In 1974, the Court held in United States v. Nixon that there is a qualified executive privilege and Richard Nixon was compelled to produce the Watergate tapes. “The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial,” the Court ruled unanimously.
Wall complained that the House of Representatives had not explained why it needs the requested documents in order to exercise its legislative powers, in spite of the findings of the lower courts. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg charged that Wall would expect more from Congress than from a patrol officer. “To impugn Congress’s motive, even the policeman on the beat, if he stops a car and gives the reason that the car went through a stop sign, we don’t allow an investigation into what the subjective motive really was. So, here, you’re — you’re distrusting Congress more than the cop on the beat,” Ginsburg said.
Prosecutor’s Subpoena Tests Whether Presidential Power Is Unlimited
The second case the justices considered during oral argument was Trump v. Vance. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., issued a subpoena to Mazars USA LLP for personal and business tax returns for a state grand jury investigation of hush money payments before the 2016 election. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the subpoena for most of the requested records.
Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow argued that the Court of Appeals decision “would allow any DA to harass, distract, and interfere with the sitting President.” He argued for “temporary presidential immunity” in a state criminal case, citing Article II of the Constitution (which establishes the executive branch) and the Supremacy Clause (that affirms the supremacy of federal over state laws).
Sekulow said he wasn’t arguing that a grand jury can’t investigate the president, just that the president should have immunity while in office. Chief Justice John Roberts retorted, “it’s okay for the grand jury to investigate, except it can’t use the traditional and most effective device that grand juries have typically used, which is the subpoena.”
In 1997, the Court decided unanimously in Clinton v. Jones that a sitting president does not have immunity from federal civil litigation arising from conduct that occurred before he took office. Bill Clinton was compelled to give a deposition in Paula Jones’s sexual harassment lawsuit against him.
Even if the Supreme Court were to order Trump to release his tax returns, they would be transmitted confidentially to the grand jury.
Roberts reminded Sekulow that the Jones Court was “not persuaded that the distraction in that case meant that discovery could not proceed.” Jones was a federal civil case and Vance is a state criminal proceeding, Sekulow argued. When he complained that 2,300 district attorneys could harass the president, Breyer responded, “of course, in Clinton v. Jones, there might be a million, I don’t know, tens of thousands of people who might bring lawsuits.”
Once again, Breyer suggested using the ordinary standard of whether compliance with the subpoena is “unduly burdensome.” Kagan echoed Breyer’s suggestion.
Gorsuch asked how this is more burdensome than Jones, which “sought the deposition of the President while he was serving,” whereas “here, they’re seeking records from third-parties.”
Kavanaugh raised the issue of statute of limitations which could prevent prosecution after the president leaves office.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who appeared as amicus curiae, argued that the Court should apply the “special needs standard” from the Nixon case and not even reach the issue of presidential immunity. Francisco said the district attorney must show that the requested information is critical to a responsible charging decision, that he can’t obtain it elsewhere, and that the information he has is insufficient.
Breyer and Sotomayor reminded Francisco that Nixon was an executive privilege case. Sotomayor suggested a standard of “harassment and interference,” in which the court would “ask whether the investigation is based on credible suspicion of criminal activity and whether the subpoena is reasonably calculated to advance that investigation.”
Carey Dunne, general counsel of the New York County District Attorney’s Office, argued for a case-specific analysis. Once the president establishes that his Article II powers are burdened, the prosecutor must show an objective basis for the investigation and a reasonable probability that the request would produce relevant information. Dunne said the lower courts already found that the district attorney had met that standard.
Justice Samuel Alito proposed “a somewhat more demanding standard,” where the prosecutor would have to establish that the information cannot be obtained from another source and that delay would cause “serious prejudice to the investigation.”
Not necessary, said Dunne. “There’s no need here to upend precedent or to write a new rule that undermines federalism, especially when such a rule would create a risk that American presidents, as well as third-parties, could unwittingly end up above the law.”
When the high court issues its decision, we are likely to see several fragmented opinions. Whatever test ultimately garners five votes, the cases will probably be sent back to the lower courts to apply the new rule. That could take several months or even years, leaving the matter unresolved until after the 2020 presidential election. And even if the Supreme Court were to order Trump to release his tax returns, they would be transmitted confidentially to the grand jury.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-05-13--Vote-by-Mail Threatened as Top US Postal Service Official Reportedly Forced Out

Deputy Postmaster General Ronald Stroman has reportedly been forced out of his position , throwing the leadership of the U.S .
Postal Service into further chaos as the agency faces a potentially catastrophic financial crisis and efforts by Trump administration officials to impose draconian changes on the nation ’ s most popular government institution .
The American Prospect ’ s David Dayen reported Tuesday that Stroman resigned from his post earlier this week .
“ Sources indicate that Stroman was forced out , ” Dayen tweeted .
Reports of Stroman ’ s ouster came less than a week after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Louis DeJoy — a leading donor to the Republican Party and President Donald Trump — to serve as postmaster general as the agency continues to navigate the Covid-19 crisis , which has resulted in a precipitous decline in mail volume .
Current USPS chief Megan Brennan , who is retiring effective June 15 , has warned Congress that the agency could face financial ruin by the end of September without a rapid infusion of emergency funds .
DeJoy will choose the next deputy postmaster general .
Days before the USPS Board of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DeJoy , news broke that David Williams , the vice chair of the board , resigned effective April 30 .
Dayen , who has been reporting on the Postal Service for years , wrote last week that Williams ’ resignation is “ distressing ” because “ nobody is more knowledgeable about the inner workings of the Postal Service than David Williams.
” “ He was the longtime Inspector General who wrote the famous ( to me , anyway ) white paper in 2014 arguing for the return of postal banking , ” Dayen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my sources indicate that this was a resignation in protest.
” Williams was reportedly upset at the Trump Treasury Department ’ s efforts to use a congressionally approved $ 10 billion loan to force significant changes to USPS operations .
According to the Washington Post , Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin “ could use the loan as leverage to give the administration influence over how much the agency charges for delivering packages and how it manages its finances.
” “ In recent days , the Postal Service ’ s board has appeared open to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms , ” the Post reported last week .
The 200,000-member American Postal Workers Union accused the Trump administration of exploiting the coronavirus crisis to privatize the agency .
Recent behind-the-scenes machinations at the Postal Service could have immense real-world consequences as the U.S. barrels toward the November elections without a nationwide , universal system in place for mail-in voting , which advocates say is necessary to safely conduct elections amid the coronavirus pandemic .
With Stroman and Williams gone , the USPS Board of Governors , which sets policy for the agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump appointees .
Stroman ’ s departure leaves the board with five members , short of the quorum required to conduct business .
“ Stroman was specifically key on elections and vote by mail — this is not a good sign , ” tweeted ProPublica ’ s Jessica Huseman in response to reports of Stroman ’ s resignation .
Stephen Wolf of Daily Kos Elections echoed Huseman ’ s warning , calling turmoil at the Postal Service “ an existential threat to voting safely by mail in November.
” “ Trump is intent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Postal Service , ” said Wolf , “ while congressional Republicans try to force it into insolvency so they can privatize it .
”

The USPS Board of Governors has selected a leading Trump and Republican Party donor to serve as postmaster general.
Deputy Postmaster General Ronald Stroman has reportedly been forced out of his position, throwing the leadership of the U.S. Postal Service into further chaos as the agency faces a potentially catastrophic financial crisis and efforts by Trump administration officials to impose draconian changes on the nation’s most popular government institution.
The American Prospect’s David Dayen reported Tuesday that Stroman resigned from his post earlier this week. “Sources indicate that Stroman was forced out,” Dayen tweeted.
Reports of Stroman’s ouster came less than a week after the USPS Board of Governors announced its selection of Louis DeJoy — a leading donor to the Republican Party and President Donald Trump — to serve as postmaster general as the agency continues to navigate the Covid-19 crisis, which has resulted in a precipitous decline in mail volume. Current USPS chief Megan Brennan, who is retiring effective June 15, has warned Congress that the agency could face financial ruin by the end of September without a rapid infusion of emergency funds.
DeJoy will choose the next deputy postmaster general.
Days before the USPS Board of Governors publicly announced its decision to appoint DeJoy, news broke that David Williams, the vice chair of the board, resigned effective April 30. Dayen, who has been reporting on the Postal Service for years, wrote last week that Williams’ resignation is “distressing” because “nobody is more knowledgeable about the inner workings of the Postal Service than David Williams.”
“He was the longtime Inspector General who wrote the famous (to me, anyway) white paper in 2014 arguing for the return of postal banking,” Dayen wrote. “Worst of all, my sources indicate that this was a resignation in protest.”
Williams was reportedly upset at the Trump Treasury Department’s efforts to use a congressionally approved $10 billion loan to force significant changes to USPS operations. According to the Washington Post, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin “could use the loan as leverage to give the administration influence over how much the agency charges for delivering packages and how it manages its finances.”
“In recent days, the Postal Service’s board has appeared open to some of the Trump administration’s terms,” the Post reported last week.
The 200,000-member American Postal Workers Union accused the Trump administration of exploiting the coronavirus crisis to privatize the agency.
Recent behind-the-scenes machinations at the Postal Service could have immense real-world consequences as the U.S. barrels toward the November elections without a nationwide, universal system in place for mail-in voting, which advocates say is necessary to safely conduct elections amid the coronavirus pandemic.
With Stroman and Williams gone, the USPS Board of Governors, which sets policy for the agency, is now almost completely controlled by Trump appointees. Stroman’s departure leaves the board with five members, short of the quorum required to conduct business.
“Stroman was specifically key on elections and vote by mail — this is not a good sign,” tweeted ProPublica’s Jessica Huseman in response to reports of Stroman’s resignation.
Stephen Wolf of Daily Kos Elections echoed Huseman’s warning, calling turmoil at the Postal Service “an existential threat to voting safely by mail in November.”
“Trump is intent on installing his partisan lackeys in control of the Postal Service,” said Wolf, “while congressional Republicans try to force it into insolvency so they can privatize it.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-05-13--Michigan Anti-Lockdown Protesters Spread COVID-19 to Rural Areas

Whitmer then asked Pence to “ reinforce ” the need for Americans to take the pandemic “ seriously.
” “ To the extent that you could reinforce kind of those needs to take this seriously , to continue — you know , everyone doing their part , ” she said .
“ And if discouraging protests is something you could consider doing , I ’ d really be grateful.
” “ We will continue to emphasize to people the safe and responsible practices while we all move toward re-opening , ” Pence replied , according to the report .
President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , repeatedly attacking Whitmer and calling to “ liberate ” Michigan .
“ The Governor of Michigan should give a little , and put out the fire , ” Trump tweeted earlier this month .
“ These are very good people , but they are angry .
They want their lives back again , safely !
See them , talk to them , make a deal.
” Some of the protests were organized by well-funded groups linked to the Trump administration .
But Dr. Deborah Birx , the coordinator of the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s concerns that the protesters risked infecting others by gathering in large groups without masks or social distancing .
“ It ’ s devastatingly worrisome to me , personally , because if they go home and infect their grandmother or their grandfather who has a comorbid condition and they have a serious or an unfortunate outcome , they will feel guilty for the rest of our lives , ” Birx told Fox News on Sunday .
“ So we need to protect each other at the same time we ’ re voicing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 47,000 COVID-19 infections and more than 4,500 deaths since the pandemic began , making it one of the hardest-hit states in the country .
The state currently has the highest death rate in the U.S .
Though the alarming growth in cases has somewhat subsided , the state continues to see hundreds of new cases each day .
Whitmer has eased some of the toughest restrictions but extended the state ’ s lockdown through May 28 .
“ There is nothing that I want more than to just flip the switch and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not how it ’ s going to work , unfortunately , ” she said Friday .
“ The only way we can get through this and take the next steps forward is if we all continue to do our part.
” Despite the organized protests , 58 % of the state ’ s voters approve of the job Whitmer is doing in response to the pandemic , compared to 36 % who disapprove , according to a recent poll .
On the other hand , 44 % of voters approve and 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job Trump is doing .
But the minority has been vocal , bombarding the governor with death threats over her policies .
Whitmer on Monday said she was “ disappointed ” that the state ’ s Republican lawmakers have been silent amid the threats .
“ This could be avoided if Republican leadership in the Legislature would step up and denounce that kind of activity , if there was anyone on the other side of the aisle that would do that , ” she said .
“ People can have any opinion they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is beyond the pale .
I would appreciate if others would do their part to lower the heat .
”

Whitmer then asked Pence to “reinforce” the need for Americans to take the pandemic “seriously.”
“To the extent that you could reinforce kind of those needs to take this seriously, to continue — you know, everyone doing their part,” she said. “And if discouraging protests is something you could consider doing, I’d really be grateful.”
“We will continue to emphasize to people the safe and responsible practices while we all move toward re-opening,” Pence replied, according to the report.
President Donald Trump has taken the opposite approach, repeatedly attacking Whitmer and calling to “liberate” Michigan.
“The Governor of Michigan should give a little, and put out the fire,” Trump tweeted earlier this month. “These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal.”
Some of the protests were organized by well-funded groups linked to the Trump administration.
But Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House coronavirus task force, agreed with Whitmer’s concerns that the protesters risked infecting others by gathering in large groups without masks or social distancing.
“It’s devastatingly worrisome to me, personally, because if they go home and infect their grandmother or their grandfather who has a comorbid condition and they have a serious or an unfortunate outcome, they will feel guilty for the rest of our lives,” Birx told Fox News on Sunday. “So we need to protect each other at the same time we’re voicing our discontent.”
Michigan has reported more than 47,000 COVID-19 infections and more than 4,500 deaths since the pandemic began, making it one of the hardest-hit states in the country. The state currently has the highest death rate in the U.S.
Though the alarming growth in cases has somewhat subsided, the state continues to see hundreds of new cases each day.
Whitmer has eased some of the toughest restrictions but extended the state’s lockdown through May 28.
“There is nothing that I want more than to just flip the switch and return to normal, but that’s not how it’s going to work, unfortunately,” she said Friday. “The only way we can get through this and take the next steps forward is if we all continue to do our part.”
Despite the organized protests, 58% of the state’s voters approve of the job Whitmer is doing in response to the pandemic, compared to 36% who disapprove, according to a recent poll. On the other hand, 44% of voters approve and 50% of the state disapproves of the job Trump is doing.
But the minority has been vocal, bombarding the governor with death threats over her policies.
Whitmer on Monday said she was “disappointed” that the state’s Republican lawmakers have been silent amid the threats.
“This could be avoided if Republican leadership in the Legislature would step up and denounce that kind of activity, if there was anyone on the other side of the aisle that would do that,” she said. “People can have any opinion they want, but to threaten someone else is beyond the pale. I would appreciate if others would do their part to lower the heat.”


truthout--2020-05-13--Trump Administration Won’t Guarantee Universal Access to COVID-19 Vaccine

Despite hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars flowing to private drug companies for vaccine development , top health officials coordinating the Trump administration ’ s COVID-19 response indicated to Congress on Wednesday that they can not guarantee universal access to vaccines for the highly contagious disease once they are developed .
Speaking remotely over videoconference during a widely anticipated Senate health committee hearing , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vermont ) pressed the officials to guarantee that a vaccine would be available to everyone in the U.S. for free — or at least to those who need it most , regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Uh , Senator , I certainly hope so , ” replied Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) Commissioner Stephen Hahn , adding that his agency is “ very committed ” to ensuring that “ all populations ” including those “ most vulnerable ” are included in clinical trials for a COVID-19 vaccine .
“ Sir , that ’ s not what I ’ m asking , ” Sanders interrupted .
“ What I ’ m asking is , if and when the vaccine comes , it won ’ t do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t get it , and if they have to pay a sum of money for it , in order to profit the drug companies .
That would not be helpful.
” Sanders asked again if Hahn could guarantee that a vaccine would be available to all people , regardless of income .
Hahn said that “ vaccine payment ” is not the FDA ’ s responsibility , but he shares the senator ’ s concern and believes that a vaccine should be available to “ every American.
” Sanders turned to the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giroir , President Trump ’ s assistant health secretary and COVID-19 “ testing czar , ” and Anthony Fauci , the top infectious disease expert at the National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) who has become the face of the nation ’ s public health response .
There was a moment of silence before Sanders addressed Giroir directly , asking him whether he thinks vaccine should be available to all regardless of income , or if “ poor people and working people should be last in line.
” Giroir said all “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a vaccine as well as therapeutic drugs for treating COVID-19 regardless of their ability to pay and other “ social determinants of health , ” but he cautioned that he does not control drug prices .
Giroir pledged to advocate for universal vaccine access , but like Hahn , could not guarantee it .
How to pay for and distribute a vaccine once developed has become a major point of contention for policymakers as the nation reels from a deadly pandemic and pro-business forces push to reopen the economy .
The government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the race to develop a vaccine , and those companies want a return on their investment and compensation for the costs of experiments that did not result in a marketable drug .
However , the public has also invested heavily in vaccine development , through their taxes , and advocates for lower drug prices say the public should have a say in how much vaccines cost .
Public-private partnerships established to develop vaccines and therapeutic drugs are funneling public research and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to more than a dozen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affordable medicine say this funding and support does not come with strong provisions requiring drug makers to make vaccines affordable once they are developed .
“ We know that the HEROES and CARES Acts allocate billions in taxpayer dollars for research that will help lead to the development of a new vaccine , treatment , or cure for COVID-19 , ” said Juliana Keeping , communications director for Patients for Affordable Drugs , in an email .
“ Once government-funded research identifies a vaccine or treatment , under current policy , a drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at any price — and without regard to the taxpayer ’ s integral role in its discovery.
” For example , one of the most promising potential COVID-19 vaccines is being developed by Moderna , a biotechnology company based in Massachusetts .
The vaccine was the first to enter clinical trials in the U.S. , but Moderna did not accomplish this alone .
Like other drug makers working to develop vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 , Moderna has received substantial help from the NIH and the federal government ’ s Biomedical Advanced Research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moderna ’ s vaccine development efforts are supported by $ 480 million in taxpayer funding along with crucial scientific research and development provided and funded by partners at NIH .
Previously , the company received $ 100 million in federal BARDA funding to develop technology for a Zika virus vaccine , and that technology is now being used to develop the COVID-19 vaccine , according to research by Patients for Affordable Drugs , a nonprofit group that advocates for lower prescription drug prices .
Clinical trials for Moderna ’ s vaccine are also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ As patients , we are cheering for Moderna and scientists all over the world as they strive to invent a COVID-19 vaccine .
But we are concerned that the funding given to Moderna fails to include provisions to ensure a fair price , ” writes David Mitchell , a cancer patient and founder of Patients For Affordable Drugs , and Sarah Kaminer Bourland , the group ’ s legislative director .
“ The government must make sure that corporations don ’ t cash in on a crisis.
” As Truthout has reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neglected vaccine research and development for years , focusing instead on lifestyle drugs and treatments for chronic conditions that generate long-term profits .
Drug companies substantially decreased their investment in treatments and vaccines for emerging infectious diseases over the past decade , and in 2018 only 1 percent of the global pharmaceutical industry ’ s research and development spending focused on emerging infectious diseases , according to the Access to Medicine Foundation .
Developing vaccines is financially risky for for-profit companies , which routinely complain that expensive experiments and clinical trials often fail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revenue .
Many antibiotic and antiviral drugs are only administered to patients for a short period of time and therefore do not produce blockbuster sales over the long-term .
So , the U.S. government and its scientists , along with wealthy foundations across the world , are covering some of the cost of developing a COVID-19 vaccine and providing other incentives to drug makers .
Congress has appropriated $ 1.8 billion for the NIH for coronavirus research since the pandemic exploded in the U.S. , and the next stimulus package from Congress is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pharmaceutical industry now claims that at least 660 clinical trials for COVID-19 treatments and vaccines are underway across the world , including more than 120 in the United States .
American taxpayers had already invested $ 700 million in publicly funded research on coronaviruses and vaccines since the SARS outbreak in 2002 , largely through the NIH .
Sanders did not have time to ask Fauci himself what Trump administration officials are doing to ensure that COVID-19 drugs will be available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay .
In his testimony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ optimistic ” that a vaccine will be developed , although there is no guarantee .
He hopes that more than one will be approved to provide “ global availability , ” and researchers will know whether at least one vaccine is on its way by fall or early winter .
Fauci also highlighted the public-private partnerships at the NIH .
Policymakers agree that such partnerships are necessary under the current conditions of our health care system for rapidly developing critical medicines in this time of crisis , but advocates for change argue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread distribution .
Under the current system , it remains an open question whether the results of these efforts will be quickly available to everyone , or only those who can afford them .
“ We believe that unless appropriate regulatory guardrails are established , drug companies will turn public investment in COVID-19 vaccines and treatments into potentially massive and unjustified private profits , as they have with so many other drugs , ” Keeping said .

Part of the Series Despair and Disparity: The Uneven Burdens of COVID-19
Despite hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars flowing to private drug companies for vaccine development, top health officials coordinating the Trump administration’s COVID-19 response indicated to Congress on Wednesday that they cannot guarantee universal access to vaccines for the highly contagious disease once they are developed.
Speaking remotely over videoconference during a widely anticipated Senate health committee hearing, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) pressed the officials to guarantee that a vaccine would be available to everyone in the U.S. for free — or at least to those who need it most, regardless of their income and ability to pay.
“Uh, Senator, I certainly hope so,” replied Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Stephen Hahn, adding that his agency is “very committed” to ensuring that “all populations” including those “most vulnerable” are included in clinical trials for a COVID-19 vaccine.
“Sir, that’s not what I’m asking,” Sanders interrupted. “What I’m asking is, if and when the vaccine comes, it won’t do somebody any good if they don’t get it, and if they have to pay a sum of money for it, in order to profit the drug companies. That would not be helpful.”
Sanders asked again if Hahn could guarantee that a vaccine would be available to all people, regardless of income. Hahn said that “vaccine payment” is not the FDA’s responsibility, but he shares the senator’s concern and believes that a vaccine should be available to “every American.”
Sanders turned to the rest of the panel, which included Brett Giroir, President Trump’s assistant health secretary and COVID-19 “testing czar,” and Anthony Fauci, the top infectious disease expert at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) who has become the face of the nation’s public health response. There was a moment of silence before Sanders addressed Giroir directly, asking him whether he thinks vaccine should be available to all regardless of income, or if “poor people and working people should be last in line.”
Giroir said all “segments of society” should gain access to a vaccine as well as therapeutic drugs for treating COVID-19 regardless of their ability to pay and other “social determinants of health,” but he cautioned that he does not control drug prices. Giroir pledged to advocate for universal vaccine access, but like Hahn, could not guarantee it.
How to pay for and distribute a vaccine once developed has become a major point of contention for policymakers as the nation reels from a deadly pandemic and pro-business forces push to reopen the economy. The government is working directly with private pharmaceutical companies in the race to develop a vaccine, and those companies want a return on their investment and compensation for the costs of experiments that did not result in a marketable drug.
However, the public has also invested heavily in vaccine development, through their taxes, and advocates for lower drug prices say the public should have a say in how much vaccines cost. Public-private partnerships established to develop vaccines and therapeutic drugs are funneling public research and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to more than a dozen private drug companies, but advocates for affordable medicine say this funding and support does not come with strong provisions requiring drug makers to make vaccines affordable once they are developed.
“We know that the HEROES and CARES Acts allocate billions in taxpayer dollars for research that will help lead to the development of a new vaccine, treatment, or cure for COVID-19,” said Juliana Keeping, communications director for Patients for Affordable Drugs, in an email. “Once government-funded research identifies a vaccine or treatment, under current policy, a drug corporation will bring that product to market at any price — and without regard to the taxpayer’s integral role in its discovery.”
For example, one of the most promising potential COVID-19 vaccines is being developed by Moderna, a biotechnology company based in Massachusetts. The vaccine was the first to enter clinical trials in the U.S., but Moderna did not accomplish this alone. Like other drug makers working to develop vaccines and treatments for COVID-19, Moderna has received substantial help from the NIH and the federal government’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA).
Moderna’s vaccine development efforts are supported by $480 million in taxpayer funding along with crucial scientific research and development provided and funded by partners at NIH. Previously, the company received $100 million in federal BARDA funding to develop technology for a Zika virus vaccine, and that technology is now being used to develop the COVID-19 vaccine, according to research by Patients for Affordable Drugs, a nonprofit group that advocates for lower prescription drug prices. Clinical trials for Moderna’s vaccine are also funded and conducted by the NIH.
“As patients, we are cheering for Moderna and scientists all over the world as they strive to invent a COVID-19 vaccine. But we are concerned that the funding given to Moderna fails to include provisions to ensure a fair price,” writes David Mitchell, a cancer patient and founder of Patients For Affordable Drugs, and Sarah Kaminer Bourland, the group’s legislative director. “The government must make sure that corporations don’t cash in on a crisis.”
As Truthout has reported, much of the pharmaceutical industry has neglected vaccine research and development for years, focusing instead on lifestyle drugs and treatments for chronic conditions that generate long-term profits. Drug companies substantially decreased their investment in treatments and vaccines for emerging infectious diseases over the past decade, and in 2018 only 1 percent of the global pharmaceutical industry’s research and development spending focused on emerging infectious diseases, according to the Access to Medicine Foundation.
Developing vaccines is financially risky for for-profit companies, which routinely complain that expensive experiments and clinical trials often fail to produce a marketable drug for generating revenue. Many antibiotic and antiviral drugs are only administered to patients for a short period of time and therefore do not produce blockbuster sales over the long-term. So, the U.S. government and its scientists, along with wealthy foundations across the world, are covering some of the cost of developing a COVID-19 vaccine and providing other incentives to drug makers.
Congress has appropriated $1.8 billion for the NIH for coronavirus research since the pandemic exploded in the U.S., and the next stimulus package from Congress is expected to include additional funding. The pharmaceutical industry now claims that at least 660 clinical trials for COVID-19 treatments and vaccines are underway across the world, including more than 120 in the United States. American taxpayers had already invested $700 million in publicly funded research on coronaviruses and vaccines since the SARS outbreak in 2002, largely through the NIH.
Sanders did not have time to ask Fauci himself what Trump administration officials are doing to ensure that COVID-19 drugs will be available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. In his testimony, Fauci said he is “cautiously optimistic” that a vaccine will be developed, although there is no guarantee. He hopes that more than one will be approved to provide “global availability,” and researchers will know whether at least one vaccine is on its way by fall or early winter.
Fauci also highlighted the public-private partnerships at the NIH. Policymakers agree that such partnerships are necessary under the current conditions of our health care system for rapidly developing critical medicines in this time of crisis, but advocates for change argue that vaccine production should be nationalized to ensure widespread distribution. Under the current system, it remains an open question whether the results of these efforts will be quickly available to everyone, or only those who can afford them.
“We believe that unless appropriate regulatory guardrails are established, drug companies will turn public investment in COVID-19 vaccines and treatments into potentially massive and unjustified private profits, as they have with so many other drugs,” Keeping said.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-05-13--Trump Pressures CDC to Lower COVID Death Count by Changing Calculation Method

President Donald Trump has privately expressed doubts about the coronavirus death toll in the United States , telling aides he believes the number is too high and overcounted .
Earlier this month , Axios reported that Trump had been mulling over the numbers , which he ’ s suggested are inflated .
A number of aides surrounding the president have expressed agreement with him .
“ The numbers have been revised up to include presumptive cases — meaning deaths that are believed to be related to COVID but not known for sure… .
So he ’ s expressed the need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so they ’ re not startled by why numbers ticked up , ” one official told the news site .
Private concerns and complaints about statistics are one thing — but according to a report from The Daily Beast , officials who are aligned with Trump ’ s view have been pushing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) to revise how it calculates the number who have died , in order to show a lower count .
As of Wednesday morning , more than 83,000 deaths from coronavirus have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some of those pressuring the CDC include members of the White House coronavirus task force , including Deborah Birx , who serves as the response coordinator for the team .
Birx is not presently part of the CDC ( before working with the task force , she was part of the State Department ) but has worked within the agency in the past .
Many who are close to Trump have expressed doubts about the ways deaths are being calculated , and some have pushed demonstrably false narratives about which deaths are attributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a death to the coronavirus today , what that means is that the guy had the coronavirus and died , ” Art Laffer , a conservative economist who often advises the president , said .
“ It doesn ’ t matter if he got hit by a car and died , and he would still be categorized as a coronavirus death.
” Bob Anderson , chief of the mortality statistics branch at the CDC , pushed back on Laffer ’ s comments , saying that physicians , when trying to document a cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked : “ Did the patient die as a result of this illness ?
” “ It doesn ’ t say ‘ Did this patient die ? '
” Anderson told The Daily Beast .
Officials at the CDC are reportedly pushing back against the efforts to change its calculations .
“ The system can always get better , ” one unnamed official at that agency told the publication .
“ But if we ’ ve learned anything it ’ s that we ’ re seeing some of these individuals who have died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s not that we ’ re overcounting.
” Anderson said the coronavirus death count is the opposite of exaggerated .
“ I don ’ t worry about this overreporting issue .
We ’ re almost certainly underestimating the number of deaths , ” he said .
Indeed , his view is shared by one of the most trusted individuals in the U.S. today on COVID-19 , Anthony Fauci , who is also part of the coronavirus task force .
On Tuesday , while speaking in front of a Senate committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fauci explained why the count was probably a conservative estimate .
“ Most of us feel that the number of deaths are likely higher than that number because given the situation particularly in New York City , when they were really strapped with a very serious challenge to their health care system , that there may have been people who died at home who were not counted as COVID because they never really got to the hospital , ” he explained .
Early counts of coronavirus may have been missed entirely .
Data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that thousands of “ excess deaths ” were discovered in the U.S. in March and April , that haven ’ t yet been attributed to coronavirus .
The sheer volume of deaths that exceed the mortality statistics normally seen around this time of year in the country suggests that many of these deaths were likely due to COVID-19 .

Most health experts agree: the coronavirus death count is, if anything, an undercount.
President Donald Trump has privately expressed doubts about the coronavirus death toll in the United States, telling aides he believes the number is too high and overcounted.
Earlier this month, Axios reported that Trump had been mulling over the numbers, which he’s suggested are inflated. A number of aides surrounding the president have expressed agreement with him.
“The numbers have been revised up to include presumptive cases — meaning deaths that are believed to be related to COVID but not known for sure…. So he’s expressed the need to properly convey that to American people so they’re not startled by why numbers ticked up,” one official told the news site.
Private concerns and complaints about statistics are one thing — but according to a report from The Daily Beast, officials who are aligned with Trump’s view have been pushing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to revise how it calculates the number who have died, in order to show a lower count.
As of Wednesday morning, more than 83,000 deaths from coronavirus have been reported within the United States.
Some of those pressuring the CDC include members of the White House coronavirus task force, including Deborah Birx, who serves as the response coordinator for the team. Birx is not presently part of the CDC (before working with the task force, she was part of the State Department) but has worked within the agency in the past.
Many who are close to Trump have expressed doubts about the ways deaths are being calculated, and some have pushed demonstrably false narratives about which deaths are attributed to coronavirus.
“When you attribute a death to the coronavirus today, what that means is that the guy had the coronavirus and died,” Art Laffer, a conservative economist who often advises the president, said. “It doesn’t matter if he got hit by a car and died, and he would still be categorized as a coronavirus death.”
Bob Anderson, chief of the mortality statistics branch at the CDC, pushed back on Laffer’s comments, saying that physicians, when trying to document a cause of death in a patient, are asked: “Did the patient die as a result of this illness?”
“It doesn’t say ‘Did this patient die?'” Anderson told The Daily Beast.
Officials at the CDC are reportedly pushing back against the efforts to change its calculations.
“The system can always get better,” one unnamed official at that agency told the publication. “But if we’ve learned anything it’s that we’re seeing some of these individuals who have died of the virus slip through the cracks. It’s not that we’re overcounting.”
Anderson said the coronavirus death count is the opposite of exaggerated.
“I don’t worry about this overreporting issue. We’re almost certainly underestimating the number of deaths,” he said.
Indeed, his view is shared by one of the most trusted individuals in the U.S. today on COVID-19, Anthony Fauci, who is also part of the coronavirus task force. On Tuesday, while speaking in front of a Senate committee on the issue of the disease, Fauci explained why the count was probably a conservative estimate.
“Most of us feel that the number of deaths are likely higher than that number because given the situation particularly in New York City, when they were really strapped with a very serious challenge to their health care system, that there may have been people who died at home who were not counted as COVID because they never really got to the hospital,” he explained.
Early counts of coronavirus may have been missed entirely. Data from a number of studies have demonstrated that thousands of “excess deaths” were discovered in the U.S. in March and April, that haven’t yet been attributed to coronavirus. The sheer volume of deaths that exceed the mortality statistics normally seen around this time of year in the country suggests that many of these deaths were likely due to COVID-19.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-05-13--The Health Care Industry Could Profit From the COVID-19 Crisis

As the top infectious disease expert testifies to the Senate that needless death and suffering could result from reopening too quickly , author and journalist Naomi Klein says a “ pandemic shock doctrine ” is beginning to emerge .
“ The fact that a large sector of the economy , the healthcare industry , sees a potential bonanza here … that ’ s a win for them.
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the epicenter of the pandemic , joined by Juan González , who is broadcasting from his home in New Brunswick , New Jersey , number two in the country for COVID-19 infections .
Hi , Juan .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Hi , Amy .
And welcome to all of our listeners and viewers across the country and around the world .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , we ’ re going to start today in Washington , D.C. As President Trump claims the U.S. is prepared to “ transition to greatness ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two of the nation ’ s top scientists told a Senate committee Tuesday that needless death would result if states reopen too soon .
The stark warning from the nation ’ s top infectious disease expert , Dr. Anthony Fauci , and Dr. Robert Redfield , the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , came just a day after NBC News published an unreleased White House report showing a surge of coronavirus cases in heartland U.S. communities , including Nashville , Tennessee , and Des Moines , Iowa .
Central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The report , based on a May 7th internal memo , directly contradicts Trump ’ s claim Monday that the number of COVID-19 cases is rapidly declining around the country .
In a surreal scene , Dr. Fauci , Dr. Redfield and Food and Drugs Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn all joined the Senate Health Committee remotely while they quarantine after being exposed to the virus or to a staffer at the White House who tested positive .
Republican Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee was also in quarantine after his staffer tested positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his home .
Of the senators who joined the hearing in person , most Democrats wore masks or balaclavas ; most Republicans did not wear masks .
Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine began the hearing without a mask but put one on during .
Republican Senator Dr. Rand Paul of Kentucky — the first senator known to test positive for the virus — did not wear a mask .
This is part of what Dr. Fauci had to say .
AMY GOODMAN : Dr. Fauci said it ’ s , quote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine will be available in a year or two .
Well , for more , we go to New Brunswick , New Jersey , where we ’ re also joined by Naomi Klein , senior correspondent at The Intercept , author and professor at Rutgers University .
Her new piece for The Intercept , “ Screen New Deal , ” looks at how Big Tech plans to profit from the pandemic .
Naomi , we ’ re going to talk about that in a moment , but I wanted to start with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard Dr. Fauci .
This was an absolutely surreal scene .
The room in the Senate hearing was sort of divided in half .
The way you could tell who is Democrat and who is Republican — you know , one party is on one side of the room , and one party is on the other , socially distanced — is that the Democrats were all wearing actually balaclavas , as opposed to sort of medical masks , mainly ; the photographers were wearing masks ; and the Republican side of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , Dr. Rand Paul , who is the only senator known to have tested positive for COVID-19 .
Yet the man who was leading it , Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander , was leading it from home because his staffer tested positive for COVID-19 .
And as he said in his opening remarks , “ We must open this country .
We can not just work from home , ” he said in front of his fireplace .
I wanted to get your comments not only on this , but also on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This was between independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont , questioning Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Brett Giroir about the affordability and accessibility of any future vaccine .
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS : Mr. Giroir , do you think we should make that vaccine , when hopefully it is created , available to all regardless of income ?
Or do you think that poor people and working people should be last in line ?
ADM. BRETT GIROIR : My office is one of the offices committed to serving the underserved .
And we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine or an effective therapeutic or preventive is available , that it reaches all segments of society , regardless of their ability to pay or any other social determinants of health that there may be .
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS : Good .
So , what you ’ re telling the American people today , that regardless of income , every American will be able to gain access to that vaccine when it comes .
ADM. BRETT GIROIR : They should gain access to it .
I don ’ t control — you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BERNIE SANDERS : Well , you represent — you represent an administration that makes that decision .
ADM. BRETT GIROIR : I will certainly advocate that everyone is able to receive the vaccine regardless of income or any other circumstance .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that is Admiral Giroir being questioned by Bernie Sanders , who was at that Senate hearing remotely .
Interestingly , Admiral Giroir was the most fuzzy in his remote location , which was in his office with many flags behind him .
But , Naomi , could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both Bernie Sanders asked and the context of what we ’ re seeing today , what it means about once again exposing the fissures in our society that occurred — that , of course , were there even before this pandemic ?
NAOMI KLEIN : Absolutely .
And it ’ s great to be with you , Amy and Juan .
Yeah , I think what Senator Sanders is doing there is highlighting the moral and pragmatic absurdities of for-profit medicine , as he has always done so well .
Of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at this point , because there isn ’ t a vaccine .
And best-case scenario , we ’ re a couple of years out from that moment when we would be talking about universal rollout .
When that happens , I think we should all remember Jonas Salk ’ s famous answer to the question about whether , after he invented the polio vaccine , whether — he was asked whether it would be patented .
And he said , “ Would you patent the sun ?
” So I think that that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take .
But within the system of for-profit medicine , at every stage , whether it is the production of essential medical equipment or whether it is the delivery of services , that is responsible for a huge number of deaths within the U.S. response .
We ’ re hearing — we heard Dr. Fauci , just now , talk about needless mass death if the economy opens up too soon .
And it is already opening up too soon in many states .
But the truth of the matter is , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warnings from experts like him , there has already been needless mass deaths , you know , by some estimates an excess death of 50,000 people as of today in the United States , because the U.S. government did not listen to warnings , was not looking at what was happening in the rest of the world , completely blew the head start it had in tackling this virus .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Naomi , I wanted to ask you , this whole issue , as you ’ re raising , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re dealing with this coronavirus with actually three major initiatives that are occurring : One is on testing , the other is on treatment , and the third is on vaccines .
And , for instance , Rutgers University developed recently a saliva test , which they are charging — the government approved — $ 100 per test .
If you multiply that , the enormous amounts of money that is there to be made by medical entrepreneurs now in either one of these three areas — JUAN GONZÁLEZ : — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to participate with the European Union in some sort of governmental efforts to attack the needs , either whether it ’ s testing , vaccine or cure .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : This whole issue of the money to be made off the virus , your response to that ?
NAOMI KLEIN : Well , look .
The healthcare industry , which in many countries that have universal public healthcare is kind of an oxymoron , is seeing this as a potential bonanza .
And I think when you have an administration , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at kind of raw economic indicators , like whether stocks are going up , and looking to be able to claim that as some kind of victory in an election campaign , well , the fact that a large sector of the economy , the healthcare industry , sees a potential bonanza here — and the bonanza is not just in the rollout of these tests , but also in the fact that people are not using their for-profit , private health insurance right now because they ’ re too afraid to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t even offering in-person services in lots of cases — that ’ s a win for them .
And we ’ re seeing big profits registered here .
And so I think they ’ re really loath , frankly , to interfere with one of the only profitable industries in the country right now , because they want to claim that as some kind of a victory .
And within the testing , I just want to underline , there are the tests , the tests to find out whether you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also the antibody tests , which are going to be a whole other for-profit bonanza .
And we saw something absolutely absurd happen within the Trump administration , where they decided that in order to expedite the rollout of antibody tests , they would not regulate it at all , just create a kind of a free-for-all , so you didn ’ t have to go to the — you didn ’ t have to have FDA approval .
You could just kind of — if you were just sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real medical experience , you could roll out your antibody tests .
And so , the market was flooded with garbage antibody tests .
Lo and behold , testing actually matters .
Approval actually matters .
Regulation of healthcare actually matters .
And so , now people don ’ t know whether they can trust these tests at all , and we ’ re once again losing valuable time , because for-profit medicine doesn ’ t make any kind of sense .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : I also wanted to ask you — JUAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also wanted to ask you about the political repercussions of the pandemic .
Obviously , there is still a presidential election in the United States this year .
And there was a startling remark by Jared Kushner , the president ’ s son-in-law and senior adviser , to Time magazine this week .
He was asked if he thought the election would be held in November .
And he said , quote , “ It ’ s not my decision to make , so I ’ m not sure I can commit one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now that ’ s the plan , ” sounding as if there was , he saw , the possibility of the election being postponed .
NAOMI KLEIN : Yeah , I mean , that ’ s a very worrying sign .
We are seeing power grabs , anti-democratic power moves around the world , including by governments that are very close to the Trumps and the Kushners , like Netanyahu , who has used the cover of the pandemic to resolve the fact that he hasn ’ t managed to win any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now he has a coalition government .
And we ’ re seeing the Israeli state pass all kinds of draconian measures to secure that hold on power .
We ’ re seeing Viktor Orbán in Hungary is now ruling by decree indefinitely .
And so , yeah , it ’ s definitely worrying .
It ’ s also worrying in the context of the fact that voting by mail is one of the only ways that you can have an election under these circumstances , and this government is waging war on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worrying signs .
You know , we ’ ve also seen attacks on democratic rights in New York state by a Democratic governor , by Andrew Cuomo , with the back-and-forth about whether to take Bernie Sanders off the ballot .
And , you know , I don ’ t think that this would be happening in a context where you can kind of count on the public to have minimal bandwidth to engage in protecting their democratic rights .
I mean , this is what this is all about .
During a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency , when people are worried about whether or not they ’ re going have a job , whether or not they are going to be able to feed their kids , there is limited excess capacity to protect your democratic rights .
And that ’ s why we see these kinds of power grabs in these moments of shock .
AMY GOODMAN : And we are going to be talking more extensively about mail , voting from home and mail-in ballots , and President Trump ’ s attacks on that , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .

As the top infectious disease expert testifies to the Senate that needless death and suffering could result from reopening too quickly, author and journalist Naomi Klein says a “pandemic shock doctrine” is beginning to emerge. “The fact that a large sector of the economy, the healthcare industry, sees a potential bonanza here … that’s a win for them.”
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman in New York City, the epicenter of the pandemic, joined by Juan González, who is broadcasting from his home in New Brunswick, New Jersey, number two in the country for COVID-19 infections. Hi, Juan.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Hi, Amy. And welcome to all of our listeners and viewers across the country and around the world.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to start today in Washington, D.C. As President Trump claims the U.S. is prepared to “transition to greatness” and the COVID-19 death toll surpasses 81,000, two of the nation’s top scientists told a Senate committee Tuesday that needless death would result if states reopen too soon.
The stark warning from the nation’s top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, came just a day after NBC News published an unreleased White House report showing a surge of coronavirus cases in heartland U.S. communities, including Nashville, Tennessee, and Des Moines, Iowa. Central City, Kentucky, topped the list. The report, based on a May 7th internal memo, directly contradicts Trump’s claim Monday that the number of COVID-19 cases is rapidly declining around the country.
In a surreal scene, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield and Food and Drugs Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn all joined the Senate Health Committee remotely while they quarantine after being exposed to the virus or to a staffer at the White House who tested positive. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee was also in quarantine after his staffer tested positive. He presided over the hearing from his home. Of the senators who joined the hearing in person, most Democrats wore masks or balaclavas; most Republicans did not wear masks. Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine began the hearing without a mask but put one on during. Republican Senator Dr. Rand Paul of Kentucky — the first senator known to test positive for the virus — did not wear a mask.
This is part of what Dr. Fauci had to say.
DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: My concern is that if states or cities or regions, in their attempt — understandable — to get back to some form of normality, disregard, to a greater or lesser degree, the checkpoints that we put in our guidelines about when it is safe to proceed in pulling back on mitigation, because I feel if that occurs, there is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak that you may not be able to control, which, in fact, paradoxically, will set you back, not only leading to some suffering and death that could be avoided, but could even set you back on the road to trying to get economic recovery, because it would almost turn the clock back rather than going forward. That is my major concern.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Fauci said it’s, quote, “more likely than not” that a vaccine will be available in a year or two.
Well, for more, we go to New Brunswick, New Jersey, where we’re also joined by Naomi Klein, senior correspondent at The Intercept, author and professor at Rutgers University. Her new piece for The Intercept, “Screen New Deal,” looks at how Big Tech plans to profit from the pandemic.
Naomi, we’re going to talk about that in a moment, but I wanted to start with the Senate hearing. There we just heard Dr. Fauci. This was an absolutely surreal scene. The room in the Senate hearing was sort of divided in half. The way you could tell who is Democrat and who is Republican — you know, one party is on one side of the room, and one party is on the other, socially distanced — is that the Democrats were all wearing actually balaclavas, as opposed to sort of medical masks, mainly; the photographers were wearing masks; and the Republican side of the room was maskless, including, of course, Dr. Rand Paul, who is the only senator known to have tested positive for COVID-19. Yet the man who was leading it, Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, was leading it from home because his staffer tested positive for COVID-19. And as he said in his opening remarks, “We must open this country. We cannot just work from home,” he said in front of his fireplace.
I wanted to get your comments not only on this, but also on the interactions, that were very interesting. This was between independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, questioning Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Brett Giroir about the affordability and accessibility of any future vaccine.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Mr. Giroir, do you think we should make that vaccine, when hopefully it is created, available to all regardless of income? Or do you think that poor people and working people should be last in line? ADM. BRETT GIROIR: My office is one of the offices committed to serving the underserved. And we need to be absolutely certain that if a vaccine or an effective therapeutic or preventive is available, that it reaches all segments of society, regardless of their ability to pay or any other social determinants of health that there may be. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Good. So, what you’re telling the American people today, that regardless of income, every American will be able to gain access to that vaccine when it comes. ADM. BRETT GIROIR: They should gain access to it. I don’t control — you know, I think that congressional — SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, you represent — you represent an administration that makes that decision. ADM. BRETT GIROIR: I will certainly advocate that everyone is able to receive the vaccine regardless of income or any other circumstance.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that is Admiral Giroir being questioned by Bernie Sanders, who was at that Senate hearing remotely. Interestingly, Admiral Giroir was the most fuzzy in his remote location, which was in his office with many flags behind him.
But, Naomi, could you comment on the content of what both Bernie Sanders asked and the context of what we’re seeing today, what it means about once again exposing the fissures in our society that occurred — that, of course, were there even before this pandemic?
NAOMI KLEIN: Absolutely. And it’s great to be with you, Amy and Juan.
Yeah, I think what Senator Sanders is doing there is highlighting the moral and pragmatic absurdities of for-profit medicine, as he has always done so well. Of course, the question around the vaccine is notional at this point, because there isn’t a vaccine. And best-case scenario, we’re a couple of years out from that moment when we would be talking about universal rollout.
When that happens, I think we should all remember Jonas Salk’s famous answer to the question about whether, after he invented the polio vaccine, whether — he was asked whether it would be patented. And he said, “Would you patent the sun?” So I think that that should absolutely be the approach that we take.
But within the system of for-profit medicine, at every stage, whether it is the production of essential medical equipment or whether it is the delivery of services, that is responsible for a huge number of deaths within the U.S. response.
We’re hearing — we heard Dr. Fauci, just now, talk about needless mass death if the economy opens up too soon. And it is already opening up too soon in many states. But the truth of the matter is, because of a refusal to listen to earlier warnings from experts like him, there has already been needless mass deaths, you know, by some estimates an excess death of 50,000 people as of today in the United States, because the U.S. government did not listen to warnings, was not looking at what was happening in the rest of the world, completely blew the head start it had in tackling this virus.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Naomi, I wanted to ask you, this whole issue, as you’re raising, of a for-profit health system. We’re dealing with this coronavirus with actually three major initiatives that are occurring: One is on testing, the other is on treatment, and the third is on vaccines. And, for instance, Rutgers University developed recently a saliva test, which they are charging — the government approved — $100 per test. If you multiply that, the enormous amounts of money that is there to be made by medical entrepreneurs now in either one of these three areas —
NAOMI KLEIN: Right.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: — and yet you have the U.S. government refusing to participate with the European Union in some sort of governmental efforts to attack the needs, either whether it’s testing, vaccine or cure.
NAOMI KLEIN: Sure.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: This whole issue of the money to be made off the virus, your response to that?
NAOMI KLEIN: Well, look. The healthcare industry, which in many countries that have universal public healthcare is kind of an oxymoron, is seeing this as a potential bonanza. And I think when you have an administration, like the Trump administration, that is just looking at kind of raw economic indicators, like whether stocks are going up, and looking to be able to claim that as some kind of victory in an election campaign, well, the fact that a large sector of the economy, the healthcare industry, sees a potential bonanza here — and the bonanza is not just in the rollout of these tests, but also in the fact that people are not using their for-profit, private health insurance right now because they’re too afraid to go to the doctor, or doctors aren’t even offering in-person services in lots of cases — that’s a win for them. And we’re seeing big profits registered here. And so I think they’re really loath, frankly, to interfere with one of the only profitable industries in the country right now, because they want to claim that as some kind of a victory.
And within the testing, I just want to underline, there are the tests, the tests to find out whether you have the virus, but then there’s also the antibody tests, which are going to be a whole other for-profit bonanza. And we saw something absolutely absurd happen within the Trump administration, where they decided that in order to expedite the rollout of antibody tests, they would not regulate it at all, just create a kind of a free-for-all, so you didn’t have to go to the — you didn’t have to have FDA approval. You could just kind of — if you were just sort of a couple of app jocks with no real medical experience, you could roll out your antibody tests. And so, the market was flooded with garbage antibody tests. Lo and behold, testing actually matters. Approval actually matters. Regulation of healthcare actually matters. And so, now people don’t know whether they can trust these tests at all, and we’re once again losing valuable time, because for-profit medicine doesn’t make any kind of sense.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I also wanted to ask you —
NAOMI KLEIN: Unless you’re a for-profit medical company. Sorry.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, Naomi, I also wanted to ask you about the political repercussions of the pandemic. Obviously, there is still a presidential election in the United States this year. And there was a startling remark by Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, to Time magazine this week. He was asked if he thought the election would be held in November. And he said, quote, “It’s not my decision to make, so I’m not sure I can commit one way or the other. But right now that’s the plan,” sounding as if there was, he saw, the possibility of the election being postponed.
NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, I mean, that’s a very worrying sign. We are seeing power grabs, anti-democratic power moves around the world, including by governments that are very close to the Trumps and the Kushners, like Netanyahu, who has used the cover of the pandemic to resolve the fact that he hasn’t managed to win any of the elections he has run in. Now he has a coalition government. And we’re seeing the Israeli state pass all kinds of draconian measures to secure that hold on power. We’re seeing Viktor Orbán in Hungary is now ruling by decree indefinitely. And so, yeah, it’s definitely worrying.
It’s also worrying in the context of the fact that voting by mail is one of the only ways that you can have an election under these circumstances, and this government is waging war on the Postal Service. So, lots of worrying signs.
You know, we’ve also seen attacks on democratic rights in New York state by a Democratic governor, by Andrew Cuomo, with the back-and-forth about whether to take Bernie Sanders off the ballot. And, you know, I don’t think that this would be happening in a context where you can kind of count on the public to have minimal bandwidth to engage in protecting their democratic rights. I mean, this is what this is all about. During a moment of shock, during a true emergency, when people are worried about whether or not they’re going have a job, whether or not they are going to be able to feed their kids, there is limited excess capacity to protect your democratic rights. And that’s why we see these kinds of power grabs in these moments of shock.
AMY GOODMAN: And we are going to be talking more extensively about mail, voting from home and mail-in ballots, and President Trump’s attacks on that, though he does it himself, later this week.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-05-14--Did Senate Intel Chair Burr Use Confidential COVID Briefings to Unload Stocks?

Sen. Richard Burr , the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee , is temporarily stepping aside from his role due to questions over the possibility that he may have used insider knowledge about the coronavirus pandemic to benefit financially in sales of his stock market shares .
The senator from North Carolina sold between $ 628,000 and $ 1.7 million in stocks in multiple sales on February 13 of this year , around the same time he was offering assurances to the public about the coronavirus .
Later in that month , however , Burr was caught on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a social club that the disease was much more worrisome , according to reporting from ProPublica .
On Wednesday , the FBI served Burr with a warrant to hand over his cellphone in order to obtain data from the iPhone ’ s cloud storage .
The device was retrieved at Burr ’ s home , with the warrant being approved “ at the highest levels ” of the Department of Justice , according to officials within that agency .
On Thursday , due to the complexity of the Senate Intelligence Committee possibly having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation , Burr stepped aside from his chairmanship position , explaining to reporters that had he remained as chair , it would be “ a distraction to the hard work of the committee.
” Sen. Dianne Feinstein , a Democratic member of the same committee , was also questioned by the FBI regarding her husband ’ s stock transactions around the same time .
Feinstein said in a statement to reporters that she was “ happy to voluntarily answer those questions ” from the FBI “ to set the record straight ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no involvement in her husband ’ s transactions .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell weighed in on Burr ’ s decision to step aside from his position , voicing an understanding about the sensitive nature of the investigation into his actions .
“ We agreed that this decision would be in the best interests of the committee and will be effective at the end of the day [ Friday ] , ” McConnell said .
Additional questions about what Burr knew and how he acted upon that information were raised earlier this month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Gerald Fauth , also sold tens of thousands of dollars worth of stock on February 13 .
Fauth is also involved in work within the federal government , as he was appointed to the National Mediation Board by President Donald Trump in 2017 , an agency tasked with facilitating labor relations within the transportation industry .
Burr is not the only Republican senator who appears to have possibly benefited from inside information about coronavirus .
Sen. Kelly Loeffler , a Republican from Georgia and a member of the Senate Committee on Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reportedly received information about COVID-19 on January 24 in a private meeting of members of that committee .
On that same day , Loeffler initiated sales of stocks from her portfolio .
Her stock sales from that time through the month of March totaled at least $ 18 million .

Sen. Richard Burr stepped down as chair as the FBI began an inquiry into possible insider trading in the Senate.
Sen. Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is temporarily stepping aside from his role due to questions over the possibility that he may have used insider knowledge about the coronavirus pandemic to benefit financially in sales of his stock market shares.
The senator from North Carolina sold between $628,000 and $1.7 million in stocks in multiple sales on February 13 of this year, around the same time he was offering assurances to the public about the coronavirus. Later in that month, however, Burr was caught on a recording telling a group of VIPs at a social club that the disease was much more worrisome, according to reporting from ProPublica.
On Wednesday, the FBI served Burr with a warrant to hand over his cellphone in order to obtain data from the iPhone’s cloud storage. The device was retrieved at Burr’s home, with the warrant being approved “at the highest levels” of the Department of Justice, according to officials within that agency.
On Thursday, due to the complexity of the Senate Intelligence Committee possibly having some role in handling information regarding the investigation, Burr stepped aside from his chairmanship position, explaining to reporters that had he remained as chair, it would be “a distraction to the hard work of the committee.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democratic member of the same committee, was also questioned by the FBI regarding her husband’s stock transactions around the same time. Feinstein said in a statement to reporters that she was “happy to voluntarily answer those questions” from the FBI “to set the record straight” and provide additional documents to show she had no involvement in her husband’s transactions.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell weighed in on Burr’s decision to step aside from his position, voicing an understanding about the sensitive nature of the investigation into his actions.
“We agreed that this decision would be in the best interests of the committee and will be effective at the end of the day [Friday],” McConnell said.
Additional questions about what Burr knew and how he acted upon that information were raised earlier this month when it was revealed that his brother-in-law, Gerald Fauth, also sold tens of thousands of dollars worth of stock on February 13.
Fauth is also involved in work within the federal government, as he was appointed to the National Mediation Board by President Donald Trump in 2017, an agency tasked with facilitating labor relations within the transportation industry.
Burr is not the only Republican senator who appears to have possibly benefited from inside information about coronavirus. Sen. Kelly Loeffler, a Republican from Georgia and a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, reportedly received information about COVID-19 on January 24 in a private meeting of members of that committee.
On that same day, Loeffler initiated sales of stocks from her portfolio. Her stock sales from that time through the month of March totaled at least $18 million.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.