truthout--2020-10-15--Barrett’s Confirmation Would Empower Catholic Hospitals to Deny Crucial Care

As the U.S. focuses on Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation hearings , another story out this week may have flown under the radar .
Michigan Sen. Gary Peters went public with a story about his first wife ’ s near-death experience from a miscarriage that sounded familiar to people who research Catholic hospitals .
When his wife , Heidi , was four months pregnant in the 1980s , her water broke , meaning the fetus could not survive .
The hospital sent her home twice to wait for a miscarriage .
On the third day , as her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could lose her uterus or die if she didn ’ t have an abortion soon .
But the hospital ’ s policy banned abortion and its board denied the doctor ’ s request for an exception .
It wasn ’ t the first time that Debra Stulberg , chair of the family medicine department at the University of Chicago , had heard such a story .
“ The experience that his wife went through is something that a lot of women around the country have gone through , ” Stulberg told Truthout .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up regularly if they ’ ve worked in a Catholic hospital.
” The report by journalist Laura Bassett did not say if the hospital that Peters went to was Catholic .
But a growing number of hospitals nationwide that follow directives from the Catholic Church generally ban abortion in all but the most life-threatening circumstances .
In the senator ’ s home state of Michigan in 2015 , a Catholic hospital sent Tamesha Means home twice after her water broke at 18 weeks , and never told her that ending her pregnancy was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third time with an infection , the hospital prepared to send her home again , admitting her only when she began to deliver her fetus , according to the ACLU , which filed a lawsuit on her behalf .
Another woman named Alison in Washington state told me how she almost died in 2013 after a Catholic hospital sent her home three times and then forced her to wait while an ethics board considered whether she could have a life-saving abortion .
Sen. Peters ’ s wife was rushed into an emergency abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an administrator there .
“ For people that aren ’ t friends with the hospital ’ s chief administrator or for people who simply live where there isn ’ t another hospital that will do the procedure , or another facility where there are providers , this could have had a very different outcome , ” Stulberg said .
“ She could have lost her life ; she certainly could have lost her potential for future fertility.
” In Ireland , a woman named Savita Halappanavar died in 2012 after a hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was miscarrying .
Means and Alison share an experience that is becoming more common in states nationwide : The Catholic hospital is the only option in their community .
A new report by Community Catalyst finds that there are now 52 hospitals operating under Catholic restrictions nationwide that are sole community hospitals , up from 46 in 2016 and 30 in 2013 .
“ Sole community hospital ” is a federal designation that applies when the nearest alternative is at least 35 miles away , or when the hospital is rural and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re losing rural hospitals left and right , ” one of the report ’ s authors , Lois Uttley , told Truthout .
“ Among those that are still standing , we have an increasing number that are Catholic , and that means the people who live in that community and depend on the only hospital for care can not get some of the services they might need in their hometown.
” The Catholic directives ban abortion , contraception , in vitro fertilization and sterilization , and have been cited to deny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people give birth by cesarean section in a Catholic hospital , they often can ’ t have their tubes tied at the same time — a common practice used to avoid the risks of a second surgery .
Many of the states where Catholic health systems have proliferated have passed anti-choice laws and would ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned .
In South Dakota , where the pandemic has halted abortions at the only remaining clinic , 40 percent of acute-care beds and more than 40 percent of hospital births are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ midst of a pandemic , patients who are turned away because of religious restrictions , as the Peters were , face additional risks as a result .
“ In [ the Peters case ] it sounds like they had to go at least three times and if this had happened during the COVID pandemic that would have been unnecessary risk of exposure by being in the health care facility repeatedly for a condition that could have been treated the first time they showed up , ” Stulberg said .
Catholic health systems are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care on religious or political grounds .
Public and Protestant-affiliated facilities may also have policies restricting abortion .
But Catholic facilities are noteworthy in part because of how they have expanded , even as other hospitals have closed .
The number of acute-care hospitals operating under Catholic restrictions grew by more than 28 percent over the past two decades , even as the number of non-Catholic facilities dropped by nearly 14 percent , the report found .
During that same period , the number of public hospitals dropped by nearly 53 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myth that Catholic hospitals serve more low-income patients , the report found Catholic hospitals do not serve a higher percentage of Medicaid patients or provide more charity care than other hospitals .
Struggling public hospitals , which provide the most charity care , have in some cases partnered with religious health systems to survive .
In Louisiana , for example , Natchitoches Regional Medical Center , a self-described government facility owned by a parish hospital district , is managed by CHRISTUS Health , one of the largest Catholic health systems .
The management @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only one serving the region , to abide by the Catholic restrictions and not provide abortions or tubal ligations .
Catholic hospitals have flourished financially in part because they are part of mega-systems like CHRISTUS that insulate even isolated , rural facilities from financial losses .
The study found almost all Catholic hospitals — 98 percent — are part of a health system , versus 80 percent of non-Catholic hospitals .
“ As Catholic health systems expand and strengthen , we are witnessing a ‘ snowball effect ’ — these systems become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for further growth with an ever-widening network of non-Catholic hospitals , urgent care centers , physician practices , ambulatory surgery centers and other health care providers , ” the authors wrote .
The Catholic restrictions have extended into more and more facilities as Catholic health systems acquire secular hospitals , or as Catholic facilities are acquired by secular or for-profit systems that agree to keep the religious restrictions in place as a term of the merger or sale .
In a striking trend highlighted in the report , the number of formerly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are still following the Catholic directives increased from just four in 2001 to 49 in 2020 .
As more care shifts from acute-care hospitals into outpatient facilities , Catholic affiliations have cropped up in some unexpected places , like clinics or pharmacies inside businesses like Kroger and Walgreens .
These relationships make it even harder to track down which facilities follow which of the Catholic rules — a task that was daunting even for Uttley and her colleagues .
“ It was difficult enough for our team of professional researchers to determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions or not , and so imagine how difficult it would be for an ordinary woman trying to find out if the hospital where she wants to give birth will allow her to have a postpartum tubal ligation , ” Uttley said .
Indeed , a survey published in 2018 found that while one in six women in the United States named a Catholic facility as their go-to destination for reproductive health care , more than a third of them did not realize that their hospital was Catholic .
But the researchers found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly all women think it is important to be informed of these rules .
“ I think any restrictions on the care that you can receive at those locations need to be plastered in 50 foot neon letters at the front door of the building , ” one patient told the researchers , sharing how her doctor had prompted her to claim she had heavy periods in order to get around the religious ban on contraception .
Another interviewee was denied two postpartum sterilizations at the time of her C-sections and experienced two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wish I would ’ ve gotten sterilization… .
I probably wouldn ’ t have gotten pregnant two more times , ” the woman said .
As the influence of Catholic hospitals has expanded , so has the legal cover for denying care to women and LGBTQ patients on religious grounds .
While Catholic hospitals receive nearly $ 48 billion each year in public funding through Medicare and Medicaid , the Trump administration has sought to expand the ability of individuals and corporations to deny care .
That ’ s a trend that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court .
“ We ’ re frankly getting worried that a Trump-packed court will be even more sympathetic to claims from religiously affiliated health providers that they must be allowed to refuse to provide any services they find objectionable while still remaining eligible for billions in public funding , ” Uttley said .

As the U.S. focuses on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings, another story out this week may have flown under the radar. Michigan Sen. Gary Peters went public with a story about his first wife’s near-death experience from a miscarriage that sounded familiar to people who research Catholic hospitals. When his wife, Heidi, was four months pregnant in the 1980s, her water broke, meaning the fetus could not survive. The hospital sent her home twice to wait for a miscarriage. On the third day, as her health deteriorated, her doctor warned she could lose her uterus or die if she didn’t have an abortion soon. But the hospital’s policy banned abortion and its board denied the doctor’s request for an exception.
It wasn’t the first time that Debra Stulberg, chair of the family medicine department at the University of Chicago, had heard such a story.
“The experience that his wife went through is something that a lot of women around the country have gone through,” Stulberg told Truthout. “In interviewing OB-GYNs, it comes up regularly if they’ve worked in a Catholic hospital.”
The report by journalist Laura Bassett did not say if the hospital that Peters went to was Catholic. But a growing number of hospitals nationwide that follow directives from the Catholic Church generally ban abortion in all but the most life-threatening circumstances. In the senator’s home state of Michigan in 2015, a Catholic hospital sent Tamesha Means home twice after her water broke at 18 weeks, and never told her that ending her pregnancy was an option. When Means returned a third time with an infection, the hospital prepared to send her home again, admitting her only when she began to deliver her fetus, according to the ACLU, which filed a lawsuit on her behalf. Another woman named Alison in Washington state told me how she almost died in 2013 after a Catholic hospital sent her home three times and then forced her to wait while an ethics board considered whether she could have a life-saving abortion.
Sen. Peters’s wife was rushed into an emergency abortion at another hospital because they were friends with an administrator there. “For people that aren’t friends with the hospital’s chief administrator or for people who simply live where there isn’t another hospital that will do the procedure, or another facility where there are providers, this could have had a very different outcome,” Stulberg said. “She could have lost her life; she certainly could have lost her potential for future fertility.” In Ireland, a woman named Savita Halappanavar died in 2012 after a hospital denied her request for an abortion while she was miscarrying.
Means and Alison share an experience that is becoming more common in states nationwide: The Catholic hospital is the only option in their community. A new report by Community Catalyst finds that there are now 52 hospitals operating under Catholic restrictions nationwide that are sole community hospitals, up from 46 in 2016 and 30 in 2013. “Sole community hospital” is a federal designation that applies when the nearest alternative is at least 35 miles away, or when the hospital is rural and meets certain other criteria.
Means and Alison share an experience that is becoming more common in states nationwide: The Catholic hospital is the only option in their community.
“We’re losing rural hospitals left and right,” one of the report’s authors, Lois Uttley, told Truthout. “Among those that are still standing, we have an increasing number that are Catholic, and that means the people who live in that community and depend on the only hospital for care cannot get some of the services they might need in their hometown.”
The Catholic directives ban abortion, contraception, in vitro fertilization and sterilization, and have been cited to deny gender-affirming surgeries to transgender people. If people give birth by cesarean section in a Catholic hospital, they often can’t have their tubes tied at the same time — a common practice used to avoid the risks of a second surgery. Many of the states where Catholic health systems have proliferated have passed anti-choice laws and would ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. In South Dakota, where the pandemic has halted abortions at the only remaining clinic, 40 percent of acute-care beds and more than 40 percent of hospital births are in a Catholic hospital. In the midst of a pandemic, patients who are turned away because of religious restrictions, as the Peters were, face additional risks as a result.
“In [the Peters case] it sounds like they had to go at least three times and if this had happened during the COVID pandemic that would have been unnecessary risk of exposure by being in the health care facility repeatedly for a condition that could have been treated the first time they showed up,” Stulberg said.
Catholic health systems are not the only facilities that restrict reproductive health care on religious or political grounds. Public and Protestant-affiliated facilities may also have policies restricting abortion. But Catholic facilities are noteworthy in part because of how they have expanded, even as other hospitals have closed. The number of acute-care hospitals operating under Catholic restrictions grew by more than 28 percent over the past two decades, even as the number of non-Catholic facilities dropped by nearly 14 percent, the report found. During that same period, the number of public hospitals dropped by nearly 53 percent.
While it’s a common myth that Catholic hospitals serve more low-income patients, the report found Catholic hospitals do not serve a higher percentage of Medicaid patients or provide more charity care than other hospitals. Struggling public hospitals, which provide the most charity care, have in some cases partnered with religious health systems to survive. In Louisiana, for example, Natchitoches Regional Medical Center, a self-described government facility owned by a parish hospital district, is managed by CHRISTUS Health, one of the largest Catholic health systems. The management contract requires the facility, which is the only one serving the region, to abide by the Catholic restrictions and not provide abortions or tubal ligations.
Catholic hospitals have flourished financially in part because they are part of mega-systems like CHRISTUS that insulate even isolated, rural facilities from financial losses. The study found almost all Catholic hospitals — 98 percent — are part of a health system, versus 80 percent of non-Catholic hospitals. “As Catholic health systems expand and strengthen, we are witnessing a ‘snowball effect’ — these systems become more attractive business partners, setting them up for further growth with an ever-widening network of non-Catholic hospitals, urgent care centers, physician practices, ambulatory surgery centers and other health care providers,” the authors wrote.
The Catholic restrictions have extended into more and more facilities as Catholic health systems acquire secular hospitals, or as Catholic facilities are acquired by secular or for-profit systems that agree to keep the religious restrictions in place as a term of the merger or sale. In a striking trend highlighted in the report, the number of formerly Catholic-owned hospitals now owned by for-profit systems that are still following the Catholic directives increased from just four in 2001 to 49 in 2020. As more care shifts from acute-care hospitals into outpatient facilities, Catholic affiliations have cropped up in some unexpected places, like clinics or pharmacies inside businesses like Kroger and Walgreens. These relationships make it even harder to track down which facilities follow which of the Catholic rules — a task that was daunting even for Uttley and her colleagues.
The number of formerly Catholic-owned hospitals now owned by for-profit systems that are still following the Catholic directives increased from just four in 2001 to 49 in 2020.
“It was difficult enough for our team of professional researchers to determine whether a hospital was actually following religious restrictions or not, and so imagine how difficult it would be for an ordinary woman trying to find out if the hospital where she wants to give birth will allow her to have a postpartum tubal ligation,” Uttley said.
Indeed, a survey published in 2018 found that while one in six women in the United States named a Catholic facility as their go-to destination for reproductive health care, more than a third of them did not realize that their hospital was Catholic. But the researchers found in another study published in September that nearly all women think it is important to be informed of these rules. “I think any restrictions on the care that you can receive at those locations need to be plastered in 50 foot neon letters at the front door of the building,” one patient told the researchers, sharing how her doctor had prompted her to claim she had heavy periods in order to get around the religious ban on contraception.
Another interviewee was denied two postpartum sterilizations at the time of her C-sections and experienced two unintended pregnancies as a result. “I wish I would’ve gotten sterilization…. I probably wouldn’t have gotten pregnant two more times,” the woman said.
As the influence of Catholic hospitals has expanded, so has the legal cover for denying care to women and LGBTQ patients on religious grounds. While Catholic hospitals receive nearly $48 billion each year in public funding through Medicare and Medicaid, the Trump administration has sought to expand the ability of individuals and corporations to deny care. That’s a trend that experts say will accelerate if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court.
“We’re frankly getting worried that a Trump-packed court will be even more sympathetic to claims from religiously affiliated health providers that they must be allowed to refuse to provide any services they find objectionable while still remaining eligible for billions in public funding,” Uttley 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--2020-10-15--Trump Got the Best COVID Treatment. For the Rest of Us He Wants “Herd Immunity.”

The Great Barrington Declaration .
Sounds heavy , yeah ?
Thunder of drums , hushed silence , and behold : A jagged stack of cruelty passing itself off as science that claims “ herd immunity ” is the way to get out from under the grinding crisis of COVID-19 .
In truth , it sounds like just more preposterous ooze from the primordial swamp of the far right , but for the fact that the White House has embraced it as the Trump administration ’ s defining COVID policy .
The idea is as simple as it is ruthless : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wear masks , social distance and test people .
The preppers and tough guys who swell the ranks of Trump ’ s most loyal supporters didn ’ t make it through April before unspooling at “ freedom ” rallies because they wanted a slice of pizza and a haircut .
This Trump-promoted self-harm has grown into the Great Barrington Declaration , a bag of deeply dangerous quackery .
The bump in the road is the millions who have to die of COVID before this level of immunity is achieved .
The declaration advocates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of genocide that would disproportionately affect people of color , the elderly , the immunocompromised , and the unlucky tens of thousands who are healthy yet would still succumb to the virus , as so many otherwise-healthy people have already .
The math is utterly appalling .
At present , the U.S. has endured nearly 8 million COVID infections and almost 217,000 deaths .
To reach the level of “ herd immunity ” advocated by the declaration , and now the White House , would require 156 million more people to become infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threshold .
Under these circumstances , the death toll would skyrocket to more than a million people at the most conservative estimate .
Who are these alleged 9,000 signatories to this declaration ?
That ’ s actually a funny question , if you like fart jokes scrawled on the stall of a middle school bathroom .
This thing that has been embraced by Trump and his people comes off for all the world like some elaborate prank .
As Truthout reporter Chris Walker noted , some of the names advocating the lazy slaughter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Freely , Dr .
Person Fakename and Dr. Johnny Bananas .
One of the names , reports Walker , “ is that of Harold Shipman , a doctor who was arrested in the late 1990s for killing 200 of his patients.
” With a minimal amount of effort , you can get 9,000 people to sign a petition stating that John F. Kennedy and Jim Morrison are living in sin with Amelia Earhart in a cold-water Paris flat .
That does not make it worthy of national policy , especially when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people killed .
The Lancet , among the most widely respected scientific journals on the planet , was swift and severe in its condemnation of the Great Barrington Declaration , and of any who would espouse its poisoned ethos : The arrival of a second wave and the realisation of the challenges ahead has led to renewed interest in a so-called herd immunity approach , which suggests allowing a large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population while protecting the vulnerable .
Proponents suggest this would lead to the development of infection-acquired population immunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually protect the vulnerable .
This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence .
Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed .
Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population .
In addition to the human cost , this would impact the workforce as a whole and overwhelm the ability of health-care systems to provide acute and routine care .
Furthermore , there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection , and the endemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future .
Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics , as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination .
It would also place an unacceptable burden on the economy and health-care workers , many of whom have died from COVID-19 or experienced trauma as a result of having to practise disaster medicine .
“ This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence.
” When The Lancet comes down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fashion , it is time to stand up and pay attention .
“ Despite the outbreak at the White House that also infected the first lady , their son and nearly a dozen top aides , Trump and his allies continue to downplay the virus , arguing that the country is ‘ turning the corner ’ and holding campaign events with thousands of supporters even as cases are increasing rapidly , especially in the Midwest , ” reports The Washington Post .
“ Several advisers hoped Trump ’ s experience would move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus that has killed at least 215,000 Americans and infected nearly 8 million .
Instead , Trump has seemed further emboldened , flouting public health guidelines to convince voters that life is returning to normal.
” Trump ’ s championing of this Great Barrington nonsense is a desperation election-year tactic vomited up by Trump himself — to the dismay of most of his own people — meant to help him sidestep the catastrophic lack of testing and contact tracing taking place amid this still-uncontained pandemic .
Pretty much the only people who embrace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the ones who still believe COVID is a hoax , because Trump told them that was true , too .
That is who he is talking to with this lethal nonsense .
Also , and not to be forgotten , this campaign push by Trump to consign millions to death as a means of papering over his failures is coming from a man who caught COVID , and likely only survived it because of the medical knowledge gleaned from those who were killed by his incompetence in those first bleak months of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breathing because of the medical data gathered from people he allowed to die , ” I wrote on Tuesday .
I stand by that assessment .
Trump is alive because he got the best treatment science can deliver , buttressed by data gathered from the corpses he has already caused .
Upon recovery , he declared his intent to abandon millions more to a choking , solitary death so he can keep his job and salvage his junkyard ego .
Not for one second does he think this Great Barrington Declaration will do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets him out from under , and that is all that matters .
Ladies and gentlemen , the president of the United States .

The Great Barrington Declaration. Sounds heavy, yeah? Thunder of drums, hushed silence, and behold: A jagged stack of cruelty passing itself off as science that claims “herd immunity” is the way to get out from under the grinding crisis of COVID-19. In truth, it sounds like just more preposterous ooze from the primordial swamp of the far right, but for the fact that the White House has embraced it as the Trump administration’s defining COVID policy.
The idea is as simple as it is ruthless: It’s just too hard to wear masks, social distance and test people. The preppers and tough guys who swell the ranks of Trump’s most loyal supporters didn’t make it through April before unspooling at “freedom” rallies because they wanted a slice of pizza and a haircut. This Trump-promoted self-harm has grown into the Great Barrington Declaration, a bag of deeply dangerous quackery.
The bump in the road is the millions who have to die of COVID before this level of immunity is achieved. The declaration advocates for what is an almost casual sort of genocide that would disproportionately affect people of color, the elderly, the immunocompromised, and the unlucky tens of thousands who are healthy yet would still succumb to the virus, as so many otherwise-healthy people have already.
The math is utterly appalling. At present, the U.S. has endured nearly 8 million COVID infections and almost 217,000 deaths. To reach the level of “herd immunity” advocated by the declaration, and now the White House, would require 156 million more people to become infected to reach the 50 percent herd immunity threshold. Under these circumstances, the death toll would skyrocket to more than a million people at the most conservative estimate.
Who are these alleged 9,000 signatories to this declaration? That’s actually a funny question, if you like fart jokes scrawled on the stall of a middle school bathroom. This thing that has been embraced by Trump and his people comes off for all the world like some elaborate prank.
As Truthout reporter Chris Walker noted, some of the names advocating the lazy slaughter of millions of people include Dr. I.P. Freely, Dr. Person Fakename and Dr. Johnny Bananas. One of the names, reports Walker, “is that of Harold Shipman, a doctor who was arrested in the late 1990s for killing 200 of his patients.”
With a minimal amount of effort, you can get 9,000 people to sign a petition stating that John F. Kennedy and Jim Morrison are living in sin with Amelia Earhart in a cold-water Paris flat. That does not make it worthy of national policy, especially when it is positively certain to get millions of people killed.
Millions.
The Lancet, among the most widely respected scientific journals on the planet, was swift and severe in its condemnation of the Great Barrington Declaration, and of any who would espouse its poisoned ethos:
The arrival of a second wave and the realisation of the challenges ahead has led to renewed interest in a so-called herd immunity approach, which suggests allowing a large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population while protecting the vulnerable. Proponents suggest this would lead to the development of infection-acquired population immunity in the low-risk population, which will eventually protect the vulnerable. This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence. Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population. In addition to the human cost, this would impact the workforce as a whole and overwhelm the ability of health-care systems to provide acute and routine care. Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection, and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future. Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. It would also place an unacceptable burden on the economy and health-care workers, many of whom have died from COVID-19 or experienced trauma as a result of having to practise disaster medicine.
“This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence.” When The Lancet comes down the mountain in so unequivocal and plain-text a fashion, it is time to stand up and pay attention.
“Despite the outbreak at the White House that also infected the first lady, their son and nearly a dozen top aides, Trump and his allies continue to downplay the virus, arguing that the country is ‘turning the corner’ and holding campaign events with thousands of supporters even as cases are increasing rapidly, especially in the Midwest,” reports The Washington Post. “Several advisers hoped Trump’s experience would move him to speak more empathetically about a virus that has killed at least 215,000 Americans and infected nearly 8 million. Instead, Trump has seemed further emboldened, flouting public health guidelines to convince voters that life is returning to normal.”
Trump is alive because he got the best treatment science can deliver, buttressed by data gathered from the corpses he has already caused.
Trump’s championing of this Great Barrington nonsense is a desperation election-year tactic vomited up by Trump himself — to the dismay of most of his own people — meant to help him sidestep the catastrophic lack of testing and contact tracing taking place amid this still-uncontained pandemic. Pretty much the only people who embrace the “herd immunity” butchery approach are the ones who still believe COVID is a hoax, because Trump told them that was true, too. That is who he is talking to with this lethal nonsense.
Also, and not to be forgotten, this campaign push by Trump to consign millions to death as a means of papering over his failures is coming from a man who caught COVID, and likely only survived it because of the medical knowledge gleaned from those who were killed by his incompetence in those first bleak months of the crisis. “Trump is still breathing because of the medical data gathered from people he allowed to die,” I wrote on Tuesday. I stand by that assessment.
Trump is alive because he got the best treatment science can deliver, buttressed by data gathered from the corpses he has already caused. Upon recovery, he declared his intent to abandon millions more to a choking, solitary death so he can keep his job and salvage his junkyard ego. Not for one second does he think this Great Barrington Declaration will do anybody but him any good. It gets him out from under, and that is all that matters.
Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States.
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--2020-10-15--White House Advisers Privately Gave Sober COVID Warnings as Trump Misled Public

More evidence has emerged showing that the Trump administration provided a profoundly different outlook to the public about the possible effects of the coronavirus pandemic than it did behind closed doors in the weeks leading up to .
On February 24 , Trump wrote on his Twitter account that Americans shouldn ’ t be worried .
“ The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA , ” Trump tweeted out .
“ We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries .
CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart .
Stock Market starting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But hours before Trump tweeted , White House economic officials had offered a much more sober and uncertain outlook to members of the conservative Hoover Institution , a think tank based out of Stanford University , which may have helped investors on Wall Street capitalize on the uncertainty the pandemic would bring to markets , according to reporting from The New York Times .
During that meeting , Tomas Philipson , who at the time served as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Trump administration , told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus would have on the economy .
The cautious tone from the White House continued into the following day , when Larry Kudlow , director of the National Economic Council , asserted that COVID-19 was indeed contained , but added “ now we just don ’ t know ” about the potential for economic fallout .
Later that day , Kudlow offered a more optimistic outlook to the public , stating on CNBC that containment of the virus was “ pretty close to airtight.
” The meetings appeared to influence investment decisions by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consultant who was in attendance of the three-day gathering of Hoover ’ s board in Washington at that time , authored a memo that he later shared with the founder of Appaloosa Management , a hedge fund company .
Within that memo , Callanan appeared to overstate the gravity of the known situation , but his overall point was clear : What Trump officials were saying in public wasn ’ t matching what they were saying in private , particularly on economic matters relating to COVID-19 .
Callanan expressed concern in the document @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s words appeared to be “ totally unprovoked ” — and perhaps signaled that they believed the economic consequences would be far worse than what they were willing to state publicly .
Callanan ’ s memo at Appaloosa was circulated within the company , later being sent out to other outside investors , too .
Within a 24-hour period of time , at least four money-management firms in the U.S. had received the information that detailed Callanan ’ s opinions on what Trump officials had said in private .
Investors appeared to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to two investors who spoke with the Times , the memo convinced them that the markets were going to drop .
“ Short everything ” was their overall trading strategy after learning about the administration ’ s outlook , according to the Times .
Within two weeks of the Hoover Institute meeting with Trump officials and Callanan sharing his memo with Appaloosa , markets had tanked , with the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping by over 14 percent .
The investors do not appear to have acted illegally , but the events highlight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the public while telling investors , many of who are politically aligned with the president , a completely different story .
Trump continued to downplay coronavirus in the days after the Hoover Institution met with members of his administration .
Later in February , for example , he described criticisms of his preparations for the virus ( or lack thereof ) to be a “ new hoax ” perpetrated against him by Democrats and the media .
Yet in private , even Trump himself acknowledged that wasn ’ t the case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month that coronavirus posed a “ deadly ” threat to the nation , and that it would be more dangerous than the flu .
A month later , the president also admitted to Woodward that he purposely played down the threat in public statements to avoid creating a “ panic.
” Other lawmakers have faced scrutiny after appearing to have capitalized from insider information about the potential economic impacts of the pandemic in its early months .
Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-Georgia ) , for instance , reportedly dumped millions of dollars in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were set to take a financial hit due to COVID-19 , even as she downplayed such worries in public statements to her constituents .
Sen. Richard Burr ( R-Georgia ) is also accused of having sold off his stocks after having received a briefing on the severity of coronavirus , and is currently under investigation .

Wall Street investors reacted to the uncertainty from the administration that was shared by a think tank group’s member.
More evidence has emerged showing that the Trump administration provided a profoundly different outlook to the public about the possible effects of the coronavirus pandemic than it did behind closed doors in the weeks leading up to.
On February 24, Trump wrote on his Twitter account that Americans shouldn’t be worried.
“The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA,” Trump tweeted out. “We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”
But hours before Trump tweeted, White House economic officials had offered a much more sober and uncertain outlook to members of the conservative Hoover Institution, a think tank based out of Stanford University, which may have helped investors on Wall Street capitalize on the uncertainty the pandemic would bring to markets, according to reporting from The New York Times.
During that meeting, Tomas Philipson, who at the time served as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Trump administration, told the group he could not estimate what effects coronavirus would have on the economy.
The cautious tone from the White House continued into the following day, when Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council, asserted that COVID-19 was indeed contained, but added “now we just don’t know” about the potential for economic fallout.
Later that day, Kudlow offered a more optimistic outlook to the public, stating on CNBC that containment of the virus was “pretty close to airtight.”
The meetings appeared to influence investment decisions by finance capital. William Callanan, a consultant who was in attendance of the three-day gathering of Hoover’s board in Washington at that time, authored a memo that he later shared with the founder of Appaloosa Management, a hedge fund company. Within that memo, Callanan appeared to overstate the gravity of the known situation, but his overall point was clear: What Trump officials were saying in public wasn’t matching what they were saying in private, particularly on economic matters relating to COVID-19.
Callanan expressed concern in the document over the fact that the administration’s words appeared to be “totally unprovoked” — and perhaps signaled that they believed the economic consequences would be far worse than what they were willing to state publicly.
Callanan’s memo at Appaloosa was circulated within the company, later being sent out to other outside investors, too. Within a 24-hour period of time, at least four money-management firms in the U.S. had received the information that detailed Callanan’s opinions on what Trump officials had said in private.
Investors appeared to have been influenced by the information. According to two investors who spoke with the Times, the memo convinced them that the markets were going to drop. “Short everything” was their overall trading strategy after learning about the administration’s outlook, according to the Times.
Within two weeks of the Hoover Institute meeting with Trump officials and Callanan sharing his memo with Appaloosa, markets had tanked, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping by over 14 percent.
The investors do not appear to have acted illegally, but the events highlight how the Trump administration provided one outlook to the public while telling investors, many of who are politically aligned with the president, a completely different story.
Trump continued to downplay coronavirus in the days after the Hoover Institution met with members of his administration. Later in February, for example, he described criticisms of his preparations for the virus (or lack thereof) to be a “new hoax” perpetrated against him by Democrats and the media.
Yet in private, even Trump himself acknowledged that wasn’t the case, telling journalist Bob Woodward earlier in the month that coronavirus posed a “deadly” threat to the nation, and that it would be more dangerous than the flu. A month later, the president also admitted to Woodward that he purposely played down the threat in public statements to avoid creating a “panic.”
Other lawmakers have faced scrutiny after appearing to have capitalized from insider information about the potential economic impacts of the pandemic in its early months. Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Georgia), for instance, reportedly dumped millions of dollars in stocks she owned tied to industries that were set to take a financial hit due to COVID-19, even as she downplayed such worries in public statements to her constituents. Sen. Richard Burr (R-Georgia) is also accused of having sold off his stocks after having received a briefing on the severity of coronavirus, and is currently under investigation.
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--2020-10-15--23 Million US Homes Remain Lead-Contaminated Years After Flint Made Headlines

Flint , Michigan , made headlines , starting in 2015 , when 5 percent of the city ’ s young children tested high for the toxic metal lead in their blood .
As the story unfolded , it became clear that the children of Flint were victims of a massive failure of government — really a century-long failure to control the lead industry and the secondary industries that put lead into products for public consumption ( gasoline , batteries , water pipes , paint , even some cosmetics , spices and glazes on pottery for cooking ) .
The Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As the Flint story was unfolding in late 2016 , Reuters reporters M.B .
Pell and Joshua Schneyer combed through official ( unpublished ) state-government data of toxic lead in the water of 21 states that are home to 61 percent of the U.S. population .
( Some states refused Reuters their data . )
Pell and Schneyer found more than 2,800 neighborhoods with levels of toxic lead in water at least twice as high as Flint ’ s .
The Reuters study hardly registered in the mainstream U.S. press , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now UNICEF , the United Nations Children ’ s Fund , has published its own worldwide study of lead poisoning and concluded that , globally , an astonishing 800 million children have lead in their blood at levels that the U.S. government says warrant a public-health intervention , including continued testing of affected individuals and removal from sources of contamination .
In the U.S. , the level that now warrants such action is 5 micrograms of toxic lead per deciliter ( tenth of a liter ) of blood ( 5 ug/dL ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just over 3 ounces .
A microgram ( ug ) is a millionth of a gram and there are 28 grams in an ounce ; 5 micrograms is one-tenth the size of a grain of salt , a mere speck .
But a dangerous speck .
The UNICEF study shows that , worldwide , toxic levels of lead build up in children chiefly from car batteries and electronic gear ( TVs , computers , cell phones and the like ) sent by rich countries to poor countries for recycling .
Worldwide , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2014 .
Although lead can be contained during recycling , the necessary equipment is too expensive for many people in Asia , Africa and elsewhere who see a business opportunity and cobble together crude apparatus for extracting lead from rich-world discards .
Neither the global lead industry nor Global North governments are doing what they could to provide adequate recycling equipment , nor to warn recipients that discards can be hazardous to their children and themselves .
The United Nations is doing what it can , but in 2018 , the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including a 16 percent cut for UNICEF , the agency responsible for protecting children from lead .
Lead , the soft grey metal , is a powerful nerve poison that , at levels even lower than 5 ug/dL , reduces a child ’ s IQ , shortens their attention span , reduces impulse control and causes aggressive behavior .
( We recognize that IQ is a flawed measure with a racist history , and we include it here only because some of the most robust studies of lead contamination have used it as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 , lead in children can cause hearing loss , speech and language delays , attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) , and violent behaviors .
Decades of research on lead toxicity have shown that no amount of lead in blood is “ safe , ” and the effects of lead poisoning are irreversible .
Lead poisoning is also completely preventable , but it requires sustained action by governments .
Although it is true that lead is a naturally-occurring substance , careful measurement of lead in the bones of pre-industrial humans has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 300 times the “ natural background ” level .
In other words , 5 ug/dL is evidence of serious contamination .
The danger to children of toxic lead in paint was first recognized in a medical journal in 1887 , and nearly every year since then , new evidence has revealed that lead is more toxic than previously believed .
France , Belgium and Austria outlawed lead in paint in 1909 .
Because of the power of corporate money in U.S. politics , the U.S. did not begin to outlaw lead in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , another major source of lead poisoning appeared .
Automobile , gasoline and chemical giants –General Motors , Standard Oil of New Jersey ( now called Exxon ) and DuPont –ignored available evidence and rushed super-toxic lead into gasoline to improve engine performance , eventually spreading 7 million tons of it into U.S. air , streets and soil , then into vegetation , animals and humans .
Even though toxic lead in the U.S. environment has declined dramatically since the 1970s , when the U.S. finally began to ( slowly ) eliminate lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical knowledge of the hazards of lead has increased even more dramatically .
We now know that the first few micrograms of lead in a child ’ s blood create more harm than later additions of lead .
The first few micrograms are the most harmful .
In the U.S. today , an estimated 1.2 million children have more than 5 ug/dL of lead in their blood .
In 1943 , a study of 20 children who had been lead-poisoned in infancy revealed that in all cases , the growth and development of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impaired.
” Only one of the 20 had advanced satisfactorily in school .
Three of the 20 had been expelled from school — one for setting fires and another for sticking a fork into another student ’ s face .
This study should have set off alarm bells about lead toxicity , but it didn ’ t .
In 2017 , a study of 12,000 U.S. children revealed that even 1 ug/dL of lead in a child ’ s blood increases that child ’ s chance of being suspended from school for unruly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and about 8 percent for girls .
Trouble in school often foretells a lifetime of other problems .
Why governments have failed to act to protect children is something of a mystery .
In 1991 , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) issued a study of the costs and benefits of eliminating all lead-containing paint from all U.S. residences over a 20-year period .
The study estimated that the 20-year effort would save the U.S. treasury $ 28 billion in 1991 dollars ( $ 53 billion in today ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the CDC , William Roper , told The New York Times in 1991 , “ We believe that lead poisoning is the No .
1 environmental problem facing America ’ s children .
Therefore , it will take a major effort to eliminate it.
” With considerable fanfare , President George H.W .
Bush announced just such an effort to eliminate children ’ s exposure to toxic lead from deteriorating paint in homes built before 1978 .
Six months later , the major effort was terminated .
Republicans had decided that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job to legislate or regulate the cleanup of poisonous lead or to require homes to be tested , or to require homeowners to disclose test results once they were known .
Explaining this total collapse of government responsibility , The New York Times explained that the National Association of Realtors had pressured the Bush administration to end the lead-removal initiative because it might raise real estate prices and hurt sales .
The effort has never been revived .
Today in the U.S. there are still an estimated 23 million homes contaminated with lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children under age 6 .
Twenty-five years after this total collapse of government responsibility , in 2016 , the Times reported that , with the help of Fannie Mae , the government-controlled mortgage-finance firm , realtors are still putting people with low incomes into lead-tainted homes , poisoning the young children of unsuspecting parents .
In 2017 , a major study looked at the cost and benefits of preventing lead exposure of all U.S. children born in 2018 .
Based on just that one-birth-year group , the study found that lead from drinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.33 for each dollar invested .
Eradicating lead paint hazards from homes would yield $ 1.39 for every dollar invested .
Assuring that lead-removal contractors comply with safe-removal practices would yield a benefit of $ 3.10 for every dollar invested .
With such obvious benefits to be gained by eliminating children ’ s exposure to toxic lead , one has to ask why the federal government has failed to act .
Could it be because white children from wealthy families are largely spared the scourge of lead poisoning while children of color and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ older , run-down neighborhoods where lead is abundant ?
In April 2017 , the Trump administration announced it would cut two programs focused on reducing children ’ s exposure to toxic lead .
This time it was the National Association of Home Builders that had objected to government efforts to protect children from poisonous lead , The Washington Post reported .
Slate staff writer Julia Craven promptly offered evidence that the Trump cuts would fall mainly on people of color in Rust Belt cities like Cleveland , Detroit and Baltimore , and Southern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montgomery , Alabama .
Craven said the Trump cuts do make one thing clear : “ The president isn ’ t looking to eradicate environmental racism .
”

Flint, Michigan, made headlines, starting in 2015, when 5 percent of the city’s young children tested high for the toxic metal lead in their blood. As the story unfolded, it became clear that the children of Flint were victims of a massive failure of government — really a century-long failure to control the lead industry and the secondary industries that put lead into products for public consumption (gasoline, batteries, water pipes, paint, even some cosmetics, spices and glazes on pottery for cooking). The Trump administration is compounding and extending that failure.
As the Flint story was unfolding in late 2016, Reuters reporters M.B. Pell and Joshua Schneyer combed through official (unpublished) state-government data of toxic lead in the water of 21 states that are home to 61 percent of the U.S. population. (Some states refused Reuters their data.) Pell and Schneyer found more than 2,800 neighborhoods with levels of toxic lead in water at least twice as high as Flint’s. The Reuters study hardly registered in the mainstream U.S. press, and there was nary a peep from officialdom.
Now UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund, has published its own worldwide study of lead poisoning and concluded that, globally, an astonishing 800 million children have lead in their blood at levels that the U.S. government says warrant a public-health intervention, including continued testing of affected individuals and removal from sources of contamination. In the U.S., the level that now warrants such action is 5 micrograms of toxic lead per deciliter (tenth of a liter) of blood (5 ug/dL). A deciliter (dL) is just over 3 ounces. A microgram (ug) is a millionth of a gram and there are 28 grams in an ounce; 5 micrograms is one-tenth the size of a grain of salt, a mere speck. But a dangerous speck.
The UNICEF study shows that, worldwide, toxic levels of lead build up in children chiefly from car batteries and electronic gear (TVs, computers, cell phones and the like) sent by rich countries to poor countries for recycling. Worldwide, the use of lead doubled between 1995 and 2014. Although lead can be contained during recycling, the necessary equipment is too expensive for many people in Asia, Africa and elsewhere who see a business opportunity and cobble together crude apparatus for extracting lead from rich-world discards.
Neither the global lead industry nor Global North governments are doing what they could to provide adequate recycling equipment, nor to warn recipients that discards can be hazardous to their children and themselves. The United Nations is doing what it can, but in 2018, the Trump administration cut U.S. funding for U.N. efforts, including a 16 percent cut for UNICEF, the agency responsible for protecting children from lead.
Lead, the soft grey metal, is a powerful nerve poison that, at levels even lower than 5 ug/dL, reduces a child’s IQ, shortens their attention span, reduces impulse control and causes aggressive behavior. (We recognize that IQ is a flawed measure with a racist history, and we include it here only because some of the most robust studies of lead contamination have used it as a metric.) At levels above 5, lead in children can cause hearing loss, speech and language delays, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and violent behaviors. Decades of research on lead toxicity have shown that no amount of lead in blood is “safe,” and the effects of lead poisoning are irreversible. Lead poisoning is also completely preventable, but it requires sustained action by governments.
Although it is true that lead is a naturally-occurring substance, careful measurement of lead in the bones of pre-industrial humans has revealed that 5 ug/dL in blood is about 300 times the “natural background” level. In other words, 5 ug/dL is evidence of serious contamination.
Globally, 800 million children have lead in their blood at levels that the U.S. government says warrant a public-health intervention.
The danger to children of toxic lead in paint was first recognized in a medical journal in 1887, and nearly every year since then, new evidence has revealed that lead is more toxic than previously believed. France, Belgium and Austria outlawed lead in paint in 1909. Because of the power of corporate money in U.S. politics, the U.S. did not begin to outlaw lead in paint in 1971. In the 1920s, another major source of lead poisoning appeared. Automobile, gasoline and chemical giants –General Motors, Standard Oil of New Jersey (now called Exxon) and DuPont –ignored available evidence and rushed super-toxic lead into gasoline to improve engine performance, eventually spreading 7 million tons of it into U.S. air, streets and soil, then into vegetation, animals and humans.
Even though toxic lead in the U.S. environment has declined dramatically since the 1970s, when the U.S. finally began to (slowly) eliminate lead from most gasoline and most paint, medical knowledge of the hazards of lead has increased even more dramatically. We now know that the first few micrograms of lead in a child’s blood create more harm than later additions of lead. The first few micrograms are the most harmful. In the U.S. today, an estimated 1.2 million children have more than 5 ug/dL of lead in their blood.
In 1943, a study of 20 children who had been lead-poisoned in infancy revealed that in all cases, the growth and development of their nervous systems had been “seriously impaired.” Only one of the 20 had advanced satisfactorily in school. Three of the 20 had been expelled from school — one for setting fires and another for sticking a fork into another student’s face. This study should have set off alarm bells about lead toxicity, but it didn’t. In 2017, a study of 12,000 U.S. children revealed that even 1 ug/dL of lead in a child’s blood increases that child’s chance of being suspended from school for unruly behavior by about 7 percent for boys and about 8 percent for girls. Trouble in school often foretells a lifetime of other problems.
Why governments have failed to act to protect children is something of a mystery. In 1991, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a study of the costs and benefits of eliminating all lead-containing paint from all U.S. residences over a 20-year period. The study estimated that the 20-year effort would save the U.S. treasury $28 billion in 1991 dollars ($53 billion in today’s inflation-adjusted dollars). The head of the CDC, William Roper, told The New York Times in 1991, “We believe that lead poisoning is the No. 1 environmental problem facing America’s children. Therefore, it will take a major effort to eliminate it.” With considerable fanfare, President George H.W. Bush announced just such an effort to eliminate children’s exposure to toxic lead from deteriorating paint in homes built before 1978.
Today in the U.S. there are still an estimated 23 million homes contaminated with lead, 3.6 million of them home to children under age 6.
Six months later, the major effort was terminated. Republicans had decided that it wasn’t the government’s job to legislate or regulate the cleanup of poisonous lead or to require homes to be tested, or to require homeowners to disclose test results once they were known. Explaining this total collapse of government responsibility, The New York Times explained that the National Association of Realtors had pressured the Bush administration to end the lead-removal initiative because it might raise real estate prices and hurt sales. The effort has never been revived. Today in the U.S. there are still an estimated 23 million homes contaminated with lead, 3.6 million of them home to children under age 6.
Twenty-five years after this total collapse of government responsibility, in 2016, the Times reported that, with the help of Fannie Mae, the government-controlled mortgage-finance firm, realtors are still putting people with low incomes into lead-tainted homes, poisoning the young children of unsuspecting parents.
In 2017, a major study looked at the cost and benefits of preventing lead exposure of all U.S. children born in 2018. Based on just that one-birth-year group, the study found that lead from drinking water would provide a benefit of $1.33 for each dollar invested. Eradicating lead paint hazards from homes would yield $1.39 for every dollar invested. Assuring that lead-removal contractors comply with safe-removal practices would yield a benefit of $3.10 for every dollar invested.
With such obvious benefits to be gained by eliminating children’s exposure to toxic lead, one has to ask why the federal government has failed to act. Could it be because white children from wealthy families are largely spared the scourge of lead poisoning while children of color and of low income tend to live in older, run-down neighborhoods where lead is abundant?
In April 2017, the Trump administration announced it would cut two programs focused on reducing children’s exposure to toxic lead. This time it was the National Association of Home Builders that had objected to government efforts to protect children from poisonous lead, The Washington Post reported. Slate staff writer Julia Craven promptly offered evidence that the Trump cuts would fall mainly on people of color in Rust Belt cities like Cleveland, Detroit and Baltimore, and Southern cities like Savannah, Georgia, and Montgomery, Alabama. Craven said the Trump cuts do make one thing clear: “The president isn’t looking to eradicate environmental racism.”
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--2020-10-15--Amy Coney Barrett Says Climate Change Is a “Very Contentious Matter”

We air highlights from the second day of questioning of President Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett , who faced eight hours of questions on Wednesday about her views on issues ranging from climate change to voting rights to gay marriage and abortion , as Republicans race to confirm her ahead of the election and secure a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court for conservatives .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hour — we spend now the rest of this time looking at the Senate confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee , which is reconvening today for the final hearing for President Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett , the right-wing judge who once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia .
If confirmed , she gives conservatives a 6-to-3 majority on the high court .
Judge Barrett faced eight hours of questions Wednesday , after a marathon 11 hours Tuesday , as Republicans race to confirm her before Election Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key exchanges from Wednesday ’ s hearing , such as this one between Democratic Senator Kamala Harris , Joe Biden ’ s running mate , when Judge Barrett refused to say if she thinks climate change is happening .
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS : Climate change , as many have mentioned , is an existential threat , and its effects are all around us .
Do you accept that COVID-19 is infectious ?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT : I think , yes , I do accept that COVID-19 is infectious , that that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you know , we could say you take judicial notice of .
It ’ s an obvious fact , yes .
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS : Do you accept that smoking causes cancer ?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT : I ’ m not sure exactly where you ’ re going with this , but , you know , the notice that smoking causes — SEN. KAMALA HARRIS : It ’ s just a question .
The question is what it is .
You can answer it , if you believe , yes or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator Harris , yes , every package of cigarettes warns that smoking causes cancer .
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS : And do you believe that climate change is happening and is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink ?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT : Senator , again , I was wondering where you were going with that .
You have asked me a series of questions , like , that are completely uncontroversial , like whether COVID-19 is infectious , whether smoking causes cancer , and then trying to analogize that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a very contentious matter — opinion from me that is on a very contentious matter of public debate .
And I will not do that .
I will not express a view on a matter of public policy , especially one that is politically controversial , because that ’ s inconsistent with the judicial role , as I have explained .
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS : Thank you .
Thank you , Judge Barrett .
And you ’ ve made your point clear that you believe it ’ s a debatable point .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamala Harris questioning Judge Barrett .
During two days of hearings , Judge Barrett has repeatedly refused to answer questions about her views on abortion and the future of Roe v. Wade , despite her public record opposing reproductive rights .
Judge Barrett also repeatedly dodged questions on the Supreme Court ’ s Obergefell v. Hodges ruling , which said same-sex couples could not be denied the right to marry .
This is her exchange with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut .
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT : Senator Blumenthal , every time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a case was correctly decided or not , I can not answer that question , because I can not suggest agreement or disagreement with precedents of the Supreme Court .
All of those precedents bind me now as a 7th Circuit judge .
And were I to be confirmed , I would be responsible for applying the law of stare decisis to all of them .
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL : But , Your Honor , think of how you would feel as a gay or lesbian American to hear that you can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it a crime for them to have that relationship , whether the government can enable people who are happily married to continue that relationship .
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL : Think of how you would feel .
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT : Well , Senator , you ’ re implying that I ’ m poised to say that I want to cast a vote to overrule Obergefell .
And I assure you I don ’ t have any agenda , and I don ’ t — I ’ m not even expressing a view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re pushing me to try to violate the judicial canons of ethics and to offer advisory opinions , and I won ’ t do that .
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL : And I ’ m not asking you hypotheticals .
These are real cases .
First , Brown v. Board of Education , do you think it was correctly decided ?
I know you told Senator Graham you thought so .
I ’ d like you just to clarify that point .
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT : Sure .
So , as I said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that question , I have spoken on that before .
And the originalism lecture that I give — and said yes .
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL : As you sit here , correctly decided , right ?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT : Correctly decided .
And , yes , I ’ ve said that .
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL : Thank you .
Let me ask you about Loving v. — the Loving case .
Do you think that was correctly decided ?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT : Well , Loving follows directly from Brown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well .
AMY GOODMAN : That was Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
We ’ re going to turn right now to an unusual moment , which was the North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis , in a hotly contested race , questioning Amy Coney Barrett .
SEN. THOM TILLIS : I just want to make sure I heard you right in your responses to other questions .
You do feel very strongly that every American should have safe access to the vote .
And I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered voter in this country vote on November 11th .
That may be a stretch goal , but do you agree with that ?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT : Of course , yes .
AMY GOODMAN : For the record , Election Day is November 3rd , not November 11th .
And then we turn to New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker questioning Judge Barrett about her views on race .
SEN. CORY BOOKER : And this year , clearly , we ’ ve been grappling as a nation with a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of our long-standing history .
You can not divorce the role of judges in our history over these some 200 years and how race has been a persistent part of the national narrative , grappling with deep issues of bigotry and bias , overt as well as the biases that exist .
We know that many of the unjust deaths of unarmed African Americans at the hands of law enforcement have brought this even more into public — more into public concern .
… I was actually asking specifically any books you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this subject , or law review articles , anything that you specifically read outside of the sentencing guidelines ?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT : Well , Senator Booker , I would say that what I have learned about it has mostly been in conversations with people .
And , you know , at Notre Dame , as at many other universities , it ’ s a topic of conversation in classrooms .
But it ’ s not something that I can say , yes , I ’ ve done research on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SEN. CORY BOOKER : You ’ re not citing articles or research that you ’ ve read on this issue , yet you have written here about it .
And to me , that speaks — it makes me wonder and want to talk to you a little bit about your preparedness and priorities , taking the highest office in the judicial world , that deals with such long-standing issues of race and in a way that affects the totality of the lives of Americans .
AMY GOODMAN : That was Senator Booker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sasse asked Judge Barrett to name the five freedoms outlined in the First Amendment .
She could name four .
AMY GOODMAN : Some of the highlights .
We ’ ll talk more about these hearings on Friday ’ s broadcast .
And you can go to democracynow.org to watch the live stream of today ’ s final day of the hearing and all the Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
That does it for our broadcast .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
Stay safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

We air highlights from the second day of questioning of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, who faced eight hours of questions on Wednesday about her views on issues ranging from climate change to voting rights to gay marriage and abortion, as Republicans race to confirm her ahead of the election and secure a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court for conservatives.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
We spend the rest of the hour — we spend now the rest of this time looking at the Senate confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is reconvening today for the final hearing for President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, the right-wing judge who once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. If confirmed, she gives conservatives a 6-to-3 majority on the high court. Judge Barrett faced eight hours of questions Wednesday, after a marathon 11 hours Tuesday, as Republicans race to confirm her before Election Day.
We end with some of the key exchanges from Wednesday’s hearing, such as this one between Democratic Senator Kamala Harris, Joe Biden’s running mate, when Judge Barrett refused to say if she thinks climate change is happening.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Climate change, as many have mentioned, is an existential threat, and its effects are all around us. Do you accept that COVID-19 is infectious? JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: I think, yes, I do accept that COVID-19 is infectious, that that’s something of which I feel like, you know, we could say you take judicial notice of. It’s an obvious fact, yes. SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Do you accept that smoking causes cancer? JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: I’m not sure exactly where you’re going with this, but, you know, the notice that smoking causes — SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: It’s just a question. The question is what it is. You can answer it, if you believe, yes or no. JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Senator Harris, yes, every package of cigarettes warns that smoking causes cancer. SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: And do you believe that climate change is happening and is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink? JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Senator, again, I was wondering where you were going with that. You have asked me a series of questions, like, that are completely uncontroversial, like whether COVID-19 is infectious, whether smoking causes cancer, and then trying to analogize that to eliciting an opinion on me that is a very contentious matter — opinion from me that is on a very contentious matter of public debate. And I will not do that. I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial, because that’s inconsistent with the judicial role, as I have explained. SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Thank you. Thank you, Judge Barrett. And you’ve made your point clear that you believe it’s a debatable point.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Senator Kamala Harris questioning Judge Barrett. During two days of hearings, Judge Barrett has repeatedly refused to answer questions about her views on abortion and the future of Roe v. Wade, despite her public record opposing reproductive rights. Judge Barrett also repeatedly dodged questions on the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which said same-sex couples could not be denied the right to marry. This is her exchange with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: Correctly decided, Obergefell v. Hodges? JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Senator Blumenthal, every time you ask me a question about whether a case was correctly decided or not, I cannot answer that question, because I cannot suggest agreement or disagreement with precedents of the Supreme Court. All of those precedents bind me now as a 7th Circuit judge. And were I to be confirmed, I would be responsible for applying the law of stare decisis to all of them. SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: But, Your Honor, think of how you would feel as a gay or lesbian American to hear that you can’t answer whether the government can make it a crime for them to have that relationship, whether the government can enable people who are happily married to continue that relationship. JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Senator, you’re implying — SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: Think of how you would feel. JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Well, Senator, you’re implying that I’m poised to say that I want to cast a vote to overrule Obergefell. And I assure you I don’t have any agenda, and I don’t — I’m not even expressing a view in disagreement of Obergefell. You’re pushing me to try to violate the judicial canons of ethics and to offer advisory opinions, and I won’t do that. SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: And I’m not asking you hypotheticals. These are real cases. First, Brown v. Board of Education, do you think it was correctly decided? I know you told Senator Graham you thought so. I’d like you just to clarify that point. JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Sure. So, as I said to Senator Graham when he asked me that question, I have spoken on that before. And the originalism lecture that I give — and said yes. SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: As you sit here, correctly decided, right? JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Correctly decided. And, yes, I’ve said that. SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: Thank you. Let me ask you about Loving v. — the Loving case. Do you think that was correctly decided? JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Well, Loving follows directly from Brown. Brown is correctly decided, Loving, as well. SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: It was correctly decided. JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: It was correctly decided.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett. We’re going to turn right now to an unusual moment, which was the North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, in a hotly contested race, questioning Amy Coney Barrett.
SEN. THOM TILLIS: I just want to make sure I heard you right in your responses to other questions. You do feel very strongly that every American should have safe access to the vote. And I, for one, hope that every registered voter in this country vote on November 11th. That may be a stretch goal, but do you agree with that? JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Of course, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: For the record, Election Day is November 3rd, not November 11th. And then we turn to New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker questioning Judge Barrett about her views on race.
SEN. CORY BOOKER: And this year, clearly, we’ve been grappling as a nation with a lot of these issues. And it is a part of our long-standing history. You cannot divorce the role of judges in our history over these some 200 years and how race has been a persistent part of the national narrative, grappling with deep issues of bigotry and bias, overt as well as the biases that exist. We know that many of the unjust deaths of unarmed African Americans at the hands of law enforcement have brought this even more into public — more into public concern. … I was actually asking specifically any books you can name that you’ve read on this subject, or law review articles, anything that you specifically read outside of the sentencing guidelines? JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Well, Senator Booker, I would say that what I have learned about it has mostly been in conversations with people. And, you know, at Notre Dame, as at many other universities, it’s a topic of conversation in classrooms. But it’s not something that I can say, yes, I’ve done research on this and read X, Y and Z. SEN. CORY BOOKER: You’re not citing articles or research that you’ve read on this issue, yet you have written here about it. And to me, that speaks — it makes me wonder and want to talk to you a little bit about your preparedness and priorities, taking the highest office in the judicial world, that deals with such long-standing issues of race and in a way that affects the totality of the lives of Americans.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Senator Booker questioning Judge Barrett. Republican Senator Ben Sasse asked Judge Barrett to name the five freedoms outlined in the First Amendment. She could name four.
SEN. BEN SASSE: What are the five freedoms of the First Amendment? JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Speech, religion, press, assembly — speech, press, religion, assembly. I don’t know. What am I missing? SEN. BEN SASSE: Redress or protest. JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: OK.
AMY GOODMAN: Some of the highlights. We’ll talk more about these hearings on Friday’s broadcast. And you can go to democracynow.org to watch the live stream of today’s final day of the hearing and all the Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
That does it for our broadcast. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Stay safe. Wear a mask. Save lives.


truthout--2020-10-15--“Garbage Fire” Hunter Biden Exposé Riddled With Flaws

The Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post published a series of stories on Tuesday surrounding alleged emails between Hunter Biden and officials connected with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma , which the outlet obtained from a source who met multiple times over the last year with an individual whom the U.S. Treasury Department has sanctioned as an active agent of Russia .
The Post , which published the unverified emails on Wednesday , reported that the information came from Rudy Giuliani .
The former LifeLock spokesperson attempted to distance himself from Andrii Derkach last month after the Treasury Department accused the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and running a “ covert influence campaign ” directed at the 2020 U.S. presidential election since late 2019 .
Giuliani met with Derkach in late 2019 .
He interviewed the Ukrainian parliamentarian , in his role as President Donald Trump ’ s personal attorney , on a trip aimed at digging up dirt on Joe Biden .
The former vice president was then viewed as the Democratic frontrunner for the presidential nomination ; he is now the party ’ s official nominee .
On that trip , Derkach and Giuliani discussed the much-debunked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later aired on One America News Network ( OAN ) .
Giuliani also broadcast an interview with Derkach on his personal podcast a few months later .
Derkach worked in the interests of the Russian government to inject “ false and unsubstantiated narratives concerning U.S. officials in the upcoming 2020 presidential election ” into the U.S. media through interviews , press conferences and other statements , according to the Treasury Department .
His efforts include releasing edited audiotapes purporting to document improprieties by Joe Biden in his dealings as vice president with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also played a key role in a roundly discredited report recently released by the Republican-led Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee .
The authenticity of the alleged emails published by The Post has not been independently verified .
Accusations of corruption against the Bidens have been repeatedly debunked by journalists .
Twitter later blocked sharing of the story after a number of journalists pointed out key falsehoods and holes in the narrative about the information ’ s authenticity and provenance .
That afternoon , the computer repair store owner who claimed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered a number of contradictory versions of his own narrative in what journalists described as a “ bizarre ” and meandering interview .
“ At least in 2016 , Trump ’ s allies pushed powerful disinformation , ” national security attorney Bradley Moss told Salon .
“ These last-ditch efforts barely qualify as trying anymore.
” Moss added that several serious questions surround the chain of custody of the emails .
“ It ’ s a garbage fire story with obscene numbers of legal holes and flaws , ” he said .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention through Steve Bannon , the former Trump campaign strategist now indicted on federal money laundering and obstruction charges , who told the outlet that they had been in Giuliani ’ s possession .
Bannon recently appeared in the background of a photograph of Giuliani .
Giuliani told The Post that the emails came from a copy of a hard drive passed to him through his lawyer , Robert Costello , from John Paul Mac Isaac , the owner of a computer repair store in Wilmington , Del.
, who had notified Giuliani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fear for his safety , Isaac later told reporters .
( Costello has been representing Giuliani in a federal investigation into the former mayor ’ s business dealings abroad , which reportedly includes his work in Ukraine . )
Isaac , who according to a social media post apparently voted for Trump in 2016 , allegedly copied the hard drive from a MacBook laptop , which he claims was dropped off at his shop for repair in April 2019 by someone who called himself Hunter Biden .
In his Wednesday interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condition had prevented him from actually seeing the person who dropped off the laptop , adding that he believed the computer was Biden ’ s because it bore a sticker related to the Beau Biden Foundation .
The Biden family named the charity group , which focuses on child abuse , after Joe Biden ’ s son who died of a brain tumor in 2015 .
The person calling himself Hunter Biden handed over three laptops for repair , Isaac alleged .
The hard drive also contained alleged photos of Hunter Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ computer repair shop giving the hard drive to Giuliani likely exposed that individual to civil and criminal liability under state and federal computer privacy laws , ” Moss told Salon .
“ However , Rudy ’ s legal situation for receiving stolen property is less clear .
And if he isn ’ t criminally liable for receipt , his dissemination of the material doesn ’ t change the equation .
That would be like charging Glenn Greenwald for publishing Edward Snowden ’ s documents.
” One of the multiple stories on the subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photo of what the shop owner claimed was a repair ticket .
That invoice — which The Post printed without blurring contact information that a search by Salon subsequently linked to Hunter Biden — was dated April 19 , 2019 .
If Hunter Biden had indeed dropped off the computer , it would have been in the same month in which he stepped down from his position on Burisma ’ s board of directors and his father announced his candidacy for president .
It would have also been the same month in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publishing Giuliani ’ s allegations of corruption .
The store owner claims that Hunter Biden had never again inquired about the computer containing his alleged emails .
“ It seems like a complete fabrication , ” former U.S. Attorney and national security law expert Barb McQuade told Salon .
“ What are the chances that an anonymous person abandons a laptop that contains evidence about the very same conspiracy theory that Trump and Giuliani have been pursuing for more than a year ?
The subpoena is meaningless , because it has no tie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This seems like a desperate effort to get this talking point back in the news.
” At the time of the alleged laptop dropoff , Giuliani and his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman had significantly ramped up their their months-long cooperative effort to dig up dirt regarding the Bidens and Ukraine .
Parnas and Fruman were later arrested at Dulles International Airport outside of Washington as they waited to board an overseas flight .
Those arrests were on unrelated campaign finance charges , but they came only one day after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearings were heating up in Congress .
The investigation into Parnas and Fruman soon expanded to Giuliani , who was later reportedly the subject of subpoenas from federal investigators in the Southern District of New York .
A lawyer for Parnas told Salon that he would be making arguments in federal court later this month .
It is unclear what became of Giuliani ’ s role in the case .
Neither Parnas ’ lawyer , Giuilani nor Isaac responded to Salon ’ s requests for comment .
The story , which comes as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is underway nationwide in the weeks before Election Day , recalls memories of the bombshell news from the end of the 2016 election cycle : Emails pulled from a laptop confiscated by the FBI upended former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign in the final days leading up to the election .
At the time , Giuliani — a former assistant U.S. attorney who maintains ties to federal law enforcement — told Fox News that he knew about a major revelation a few days in advance of former FBI director James @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI would investigate the emails .
“ I do think that all of these revelations about Hillary Clinton finally are beginning to have an impact , ” Giuliani said .
“ He ’ s got a surprise or two that you ’ re going to hear about in the next two days.
” On another program later , he repeated the suggestion : “ I mean , I ’ m talking about some pretty big surprises.
” After Comey ’ s announcement , Giuliani again took to Fox News , this time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the last — honestly , tell you the truth , I thought it was going to be about three , four weeks ago , ” he said .
“ Because back — way back in July this started .
So , this has been boiling up.
” “ I did nothing to get it out .
I had no role in it , ” he added .
“ Did I hear about it ?
You ’ re darn right I heard about it , and I can ’ t even repeat the @ @ @ @ @ @

The Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post published a series of stories on Tuesday surrounding alleged emails between Hunter Biden and officials connected with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, which the outlet obtained from a source who met multiple times over the last year with an individual whom the U.S. Treasury Department has sanctioned as an active agent of Russia.
The Post, which published the unverified emails on Wednesday, reported that the information came from Rudy Giuliani. The former LifeLock spokesperson attempted to distance himself from Andrii Derkach last month after the Treasury Department accused the Ukrainian lawmaker of being a Russian agent and running a “covert influence campaign” directed at the 2020 U.S. presidential election since late 2019.
Giuliani met with Derkach in late 2019. He interviewed the Ukrainian parliamentarian, in his role as President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, on a trip aimed at digging up dirt on Joe Biden. The former vice president was then viewed as the Democratic frontrunner for the presidential nomination; he is now the party’s official nominee.
On that trip, Derkach and Giuliani discussed the much-debunked allegations about Biden in a segment which later aired on One America News Network (OAN). Giuliani also broadcast an interview with Derkach on his personal podcast a few months later.
Derkach worked in the interests of the Russian government to inject “false and unsubstantiated narratives concerning U.S. officials in the upcoming 2020 presidential election” into the U.S. media through interviews, press conferences and other statements, according to the Treasury Department.
His efforts include releasing edited audiotapes purporting to document improprieties by Joe Biden in his dealings as vice president with the Ukrainian government. Derkach’s disinformation also played a key role in a roundly discredited report recently released by the Republican-led Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
The authenticity of the alleged emails published by The Post has not been independently verified. Accusations of corruption against the Bidens have been repeatedly debunked by journalists.
Twitter later blocked sharing of the story after a number of journalists pointed out key falsehoods and holes in the narrative about the information’s authenticity and provenance. That afternoon, the computer repair store owner who claimed to have first come across the alleged emails offered a number of contradictory versions of his own narrative in what journalists described as a “bizarre” and meandering interview.
“At least in 2016, Trump’s allies pushed powerful disinformation,” national security attorney Bradley Moss told Salon. “These last-ditch efforts barely qualify as trying anymore.”
Moss added that several serious questions surround the chain of custody of the emails.
“It’s a garbage fire story with obscene numbers of legal holes and flaws,” he said.
The emails came to The Post’s attention through Steve Bannon, the former Trump campaign strategist now indicted on federal money laundering and obstruction charges, who told the outlet that they had been in Giuliani’s possession.
Bannon recently appeared in the background of a photograph of Giuliani.
Giuliani told The Post that the emails came from a copy of a hard drive passed to him through his lawyer, Robert Costello, from John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of a computer repair store in Wilmington, Del., who had notified Giuliani at an unspecified date — allegedly out of fear for his safety, Isaac later told reporters. (Costello has been representing Giuliani in a federal investigation into the former mayor’s business dealings abroad, which reportedly includes his work in Ukraine.)
Isaac, who according to a social media post apparently voted for Trump in 2016, allegedly copied the hard drive from a MacBook laptop, which he claims was dropped off at his shop for repair in April 2019 by someone who called himself Hunter Biden.
In his Wednesday interview with reporters, Isaac claimed that a medical condition had prevented him from actually seeing the person who dropped off the laptop, adding that he believed the computer was Biden’s because it bore a sticker related to the Beau Biden Foundation. The Biden family named the charity group, which focuses on child abuse, after Joe Biden’s son who died of a brain tumor in 2015. The person calling himself Hunter Biden handed over three laptops for repair, Isaac alleged.
The hard drive also contained alleged photos of Hunter Biden, including with drug paraphernalia.
“The computer repair shop giving the hard drive to Giuliani likely exposed that individual to civil and criminal liability under state and federal computer privacy laws,” Moss told Salon. “However, Rudy’s legal situation for receiving stolen property is less clear. And if he isn’t criminally liable for receipt, his dissemination of the material doesn’t change the equation. That would be like charging Glenn Greenwald for publishing Edward Snowden’s documents.”
One of the multiple stories on the subject published Wednesday by The Post included a photo of what the shop owner claimed was a repair ticket. That invoice — which The Post printed without blurring contact information that a search by Salon subsequently linked to Hunter Biden — was dated April 19, 2019.
If Hunter Biden had indeed dropped off the computer, it would have been in the same month in which he stepped down from his position on Burisma’s board of directors and his father announced his candidacy for president. It would have also been the same month in which some outlets in the U.S. press began publishing Giuliani’s allegations of corruption.
The store owner claims that Hunter Biden had never again inquired about the computer containing his alleged emails.
“It seems like a complete fabrication,” former U.S. Attorney and national security law expert Barb McQuade told Salon. “What are the chances that an anonymous person abandons a laptop that contains evidence about the very same conspiracy theory that Trump and Giuliani have been pursuing for more than a year? The subpoena is meaningless, because it has no tie whatsoever to Hunter Biden on its face. This seems like a desperate effort to get this talking point back in the news.”
At the time of the alleged laptop dropoff, Giuliani and his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman had significantly ramped up their their months-long cooperative effort to dig up dirt regarding the Bidens and Ukraine.
Parnas and Fruman were later arrested at Dulles International Airport outside of Washington as they waited to board an overseas flight. Those arrests were on unrelated campaign finance charges, but they came only one day after the duo met Giuliani for drinks as impeachment hearings were heating up in Congress.
The investigation into Parnas and Fruman soon expanded to Giuliani, who was later reportedly the subject of subpoenas from federal investigators in the Southern District of New York. A lawyer for Parnas told Salon that he would be making arguments in federal court later this month. It is unclear what became of Giuliani’s role in the case.
Neither Parnas’ lawyer, Giuilani nor Isaac responded to Salon’s requests for comment.
The story, which comes as an “October surprise” while voting is underway nationwide in the weeks before Election Day, recalls memories of the bombshell news from the end of the 2016 election cycle: Emails pulled from a laptop confiscated by the FBI upended former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the final days leading up to the election.
At the time, Giuliani — a former assistant U.S. attorney who maintains ties to federal law enforcement — told Fox News that he knew about a major revelation a few days in advance of former FBI director James Comey’s stunning announcement that the FBI would investigate the emails.
“I do think that all of these revelations about Hillary Clinton finally are beginning to have an impact,” Giuliani said. “He’s got a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next two days.”
On another program later, he repeated the suggestion: “I mean, I’m talking about some pretty big surprises.”
After Comey’s announcement, Giuliani again took to Fox News, this time to boast.
“I had expected this for the last — honestly, tell you the truth, I thought it was going to be about three, four weeks ago,” he said. “Because back — way back in July this started. So, this has been boiling up.”
“I did nothing to get it out. I had no role in it,” he added. “Did I hear about it? You’re darn right I heard about it, and I can’t even repeat the language that I heard.”
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.