hotair--2020-10-05--HIPAA and the President

HIPAA and the President

This has already come up a couple of times , but it seems to be a bone of contention that everyone wants to gnaw on for a while this week .
The issue at hand is once again the question of why President Trump ’ s doctor isn ’ t as forthcoming during the briefings at Walter Reed as he might be ( to put it charitably ) .
Jumping into this debate is our friend Jim Geraghty from National Review , writing about this question in today ’ s edition of the Morning Jolt .
In this column , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act along with the American Medical Association ’ s code of ethics , offering them as reasons why Dr. Sean Conley can ’ t provide “ too many details ” about the President ’ s recent medical situation .
In 1996 , Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act , or HIPAA , which took steps to ensure patient privacy and set rules for the handling of “ protected health information.
” Personal health information is exactly what it sounds like — medical history , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , insurance information and other data that a health-care professional collects in the process of providing care .
HIPAA applies to the president ’ s doctors , and under the law , the president is entitled to the same right to privacy as every other American citizen .
We can argue about whether that should be the case , but that is indeed the law right now ; there is no presidential exception to HIPAA .
In addition to HIPAA limitations , the American Medical Association ’ s code of ethics declares , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preserve the confidentiality of information gathered in association with the care of the patient .
.
.
In general , patients are entitled to decide whether and to whom their personal health information is disclosed.
” I want to focus on two points that Jim brings up here in terms of how they relate to the current situation .
Point number one is his claim that “ there is no presidential exception to HIPAA.
” You won ’ t get any argument from me on that one .
There clearly is no carveout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surrender their right to privacy in terms of their medical records .
Now , with that one out of the way , I ’ ll move on to the more important point .
Jim also reminds us that both HIPAA and the AMA code of ethics ensure that “ patients are entitled to decide whether and to whom their personal health information is disclosed.
” And that ’ s exactly the point we should be focusing on .
I ’ m going to commit the cardinal sin among writers of quoting myself and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning .
“ And let ’ s not pretend that this has anything to do with HIPAA privacy guidelines .
Presidents ( and presidential candidates ) pretty much give up their privacy about their medical records the moment they step into the spotlight .
And neither the President nor his doctors have invoked any sort of privacy issues when discussing this situation.
” Yes , the President could stake the claim that his medical records are private and nobody would have a legal leg to stand on if they wanted to gainsay him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and presidential candidates , Donald Trump voluntarily released his medical records via his personal doctor when running against Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
( The less said about that the better . )
Since that time he has released the results of his annual checkups .
Nobody could force him to do it legally , but the American people have come to expect that information and he ’ s delivered it just as his predecessors have .
Most of us give permission for someone else to access our records , but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parent , or other relatives .
The President does the same thing , but he gives that level of permission to the entire world .
This current medical situation is no different .
Trump could have put out a statement saying that he was keeping his records private .
And let ’ s admit it… he wouldn ’ t be afraid to do that if he wished .
Have you seen his tax records yet ?
But the point is that he didn ’ t .
Alternately , he could have had Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that he hadn ’ t received permission from his patient to release him from his obligations under HIPPA so he would be unable to answer any questions on specifics of Trump ’ s medical situation .
He didn ’ t do that either .
He stepped up to the microphone and began revealing all manner of things which could have been off-limits if the President had chosen to invoke his privacy rights .
It ’ s possible that when reporters repeatedly asked him when the President ’ s last negative COVID test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ d received supplemental oxygen , Conley could conceivably have said that he hadn ’ t received permission to reveal those specific facts .
But he didn ’ t do that either .
Of course , treating this as a political question , he really couldn ’ t have done that , now could he ?
Clearly , he had Trump ’ s permission to discuss things like his blood-oxygen levels , his temperature and his COVID test results on Thursday evening because he ’ d already emptied the bag on those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around and invoked HIPPA privacy guidelines or his code of ethics only on the questions of previous negative tests and supplemental oxygen , the only headlines to be seen around the world would have accused Trump of covering up some serious part of his diagnosis while hiding behind privacy laws .
So with all due respect to Jim , neither HIPAA nor the AMA code of ethics is the solution to this mystery .
We ’ re still left with a doctor who is trying to suddenly adopt the tactics of a politician @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some questions while answering others .
And that ’ s arguably creating a worse set of optics than telling the public nothing at all about Trump ’ s health .

This has already come up a couple of times, but it seems to be a bone of contention that everyone wants to gnaw on for a while this week. The issue at hand is once again the question of why President Trump’s doctor isn’t as forthcoming during the briefings at Walter Reed as he might be (to put it charitably). Jumping into this debate is our friend Jim Geraghty from National Review, writing about this question in today’s edition of the Morning Jolt. In this column, Jim offers up some key portions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act along with the American Medical Association’s code of ethics, offering them as reasons why Dr. Sean Conley can’t provide “too many details” about the President’s recent medical situation.
In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, which took steps to ensure patient privacy and set rules for the handling of “protected health information.” Personal health information is exactly what it sounds like — medical history, test and laboratory results, clinical notes, insurance information and other data that a health-care professional collects in the process of providing care. HIPAA applies to the president’s doctors, and under the law, the president is entitled to the same right to privacy as every other American citizen. We can argue about whether that should be the case, but that is indeed the law right now; there is no presidential exception to HIPAA. In addition to HIPAA limitations, the American Medical Association’s code of ethics declares, “Physicians have an ethical obligation to preserve the confidentiality of information gathered in association with the care of the patient . . . In general, patients are entitled to decide whether and to whom their personal health information is disclosed.”
I want to focus on two points that Jim brings up here in terms of how they relate to the current situation. Point number one is his claim that “there is no presidential exception to HIPAA.” You won’t get any argument from me on that one. There clearly is no carveout in the HIPAA laws saying that Presidents surrender their right to privacy in terms of their medical records. Now, with that one out of the way, I’ll move on to the more important point.
Jim also reminds us that both HIPAA and the AMA code of ethics ensure that “patients are entitled to decide whether and to whom their personal health information is disclosed.” And that’s exactly the point we should be focusing on. I’m going to commit the cardinal sin among writers of quoting myself and point to something I wrote only this morning.
“And let’s not pretend that this has anything to do with HIPAA privacy guidelines. Presidents (and presidential candidates) pretty much give up their privacy about their medical records the moment they step into the spotlight. And neither the President nor his doctors have invoked any sort of privacy issues when discussing this situation.”
Yes, the President could stake the claim that his medical records are private and nobody would have a legal leg to stand on if they wanted to gainsay him. But as with virtually all presidents and presidential candidates, Donald Trump voluntarily released his medical records via his personal doctor when running against Hillary Clinton in 2016. (The less said about that the better.) Since that time he has released the results of his annual checkups. Nobody could force him to do it legally, but the American people have come to expect that information and he’s delivered it just as his predecessors have. Most of us give permission for someone else to access our records, but it’s generally a spouse, child, parent, or other relatives. The President does the same thing, but he gives that level of permission to the entire world.
This current medical situation is no different. Trump could have put out a statement saying that he was keeping his records private. And let’s admit it… he wouldn’t be afraid to do that if he wished. Have you seen his tax records yet? But the point is that he didn’t.
Alternately, he could have had Dr. Conley come out on Saturday morning and say that he hadn’t received permission from his patient to release him from his obligations under HIPPA so he would be unable to answer any questions on specifics of Trump’s medical situation. He didn’t do that either. He stepped up to the microphone and began revealing all manner of things which could have been off-limits if the President had chosen to invoke his privacy rights. It’s possible that when reporters repeatedly asked him when the President’s last negative COVID test had been conducted or whether or not he’d received supplemental oxygen, Conley could conceivably have said that he hadn’t received permission to reveal those specific facts. But he didn’t do that either.
Of course, treating this as a political question, he really couldn’t have done that, now could he? Clearly, he had Trump’s permission to discuss things like his blood-oxygen levels, his temperature and his COVID test results on Thursday evening because he’d already emptied the bag on those specific details. But if he turned around and invoked HIPPA privacy guidelines or his code of ethics only on the questions of previous negative tests and supplemental oxygen, the only headlines to be seen around the world would have accused Trump of covering up some serious part of his diagnosis while hiding behind privacy laws.
So with all due respect to Jim, neither HIPAA nor the AMA code of ethics is the solution to this mystery. We’re still left with a doctor who is trying to suddenly adopt the tactics of a politician and play it cute by demurring on some questions while answering others. And that’s arguably creating a worse set of optics than telling the public nothing at all about Trump’s health.


hotair--2020-10-05--McEnany: I *just* found out I'm COVID-19 positive too

The timing matters here , for more than one reason .
Kayleigh McEnany announced she would begin quarantining today after testing positive for COVID-19 — and insisting that she had no knowledge of Hope Hicks ’ positive test before the most recent White House press briefing : Note the emphasis on McEnany ’ s knowledge of Hicks ’ status .
That comes in answer to criticism she has received , including from the Morning Joe crew on Friday , for continuing to conduct business with reporters at the White House .
Media figures are fuming over the risks as at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press corps have now been diagnosed positive for COVID-19 ( the fourth was announced earlier this morning ) .
After all of the events at the White House the past week and the sudden spike in positive test results , one can understand why they ’ re a little sensitive about this topic at the moment : “ That ’ s an important moment because it raised eyebrows at the time that he travelled with , this is before we knew anything about Hope Hicks , he travelled with a smaller party than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lemire said , “ and Kayleigh McEnany , who we were told was slated to travel with him did not .
Instead , one of the deputy press secretaries did .
Kayleigh McEnany was , we have now learned , notified of Hope Hicks ’ positive diagnoses yesterday [ Thursday — Ed ] and later in the day still held a briefing with White House reporters , and , of course , she was not wearing a mask.
” “ Wait , ” Scarborough said .
“ She knew before that press conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask , in front of all of those reporters and had heated exchanges with Fox News reporters ?
” “ She knew that she had been exposed to this disease , and went out and still had a press conference in front of members of the press ?
” Scarborough said .
Lemire agreed that may have happened , although subsequent reporting showed McEnany did not know about Hicks ’ positive test until shortly before the news broke Thursday evening .
“ That ’ s correct , Joe , ” he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House briefing room .
Yes , she took to the podium in the White House briefing room and spoke to reporters after learning that Hope Hicks had not been feeling well , after learning that Hope Hicks tested positive .
The president himself did not interact with reporters , which was noteworthy — that ’ s rare these days .
No reporters had contact with him , other than waving at a distance headed to the helicopter headed to his New Jersey fundraiser.
” Had she known about Hicks ’ illness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would have been hard to excuse .
However , it seems very unlikely that McEnany would have been contagious on Thursday but only registering positive today , or that she rather than other officials who registered positive last week was the nexus of contagion in the WH press corps .
And if she didn ’ t know about Hicks ’ illness until the evening , then it ’ s a moot point anyway .
Besides , how close is the podium in the briefing room to the front row ?
It has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the same reporters were wearing masks themselves .
It would be better if everyone was masked up , but even the doctors who brief the press in the same room are usually maskless while on the dais .
The problem in this situation is that the American public doesn ’ t trust anyone in this crisis .
Our pal Philip Klein succinctly summed up the institutional moment : The truth is that this virus will make its way through the population eventually , regardless of what roadblocks we put up .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that transmission rate and reduce viral loads to produce asymptomatic or low-symptom cases , which is why those strategies are so vital until we have an effective and widely available vaccine .
Even with those , a virus is going to do what a virus is going to do , and any expectations that it will just “ go away ” ( as the White House and Trump suggested early on ) are ridiculous fantasy at this point .
If all sides would accept that truth and operate realistically in fighting this pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ d all be better off .

The timing matters here, for more than one reason. Kayleigh McEnany announced she would begin quarantining today after testing positive for COVID-19 — and insisting that she had no knowledge of Hope Hicks’ positive test before the most recent White House press briefing:
Note the emphasis on McEnany’s knowledge of Hicks’ status. That comes in answer to criticism she has received, including from the Morning Joe crew on Friday, for continuing to conduct business with reporters at the White House. Media figures are fuming over the risks as at least four members of the White House press corps have now been diagnosed positive for COVID-19 (the fourth was announced earlier this morning). After all of the events at the White House the past week and the sudden spike in positive test results, one can understand why they’re a little sensitive about this topic at the moment:
“That’s an important moment because it raised eyebrows at the time that he travelled with, this is before we knew anything about Hope Hicks, he travelled with a smaller party than usual yesterday to New Jersey,” Lemire said, “and Kayleigh McEnany, who we were told was slated to travel with him did not. Instead, one of the deputy press secretaries did. Kayleigh McEnany was, we have now learned, notified of Hope Hicks’ positive diagnoses yesterday [Thursday — Ed] and later in the day still held a briefing with White House reporters, and, of course, she was not wearing a mask.” “Good lord,” Scarborough said. “Are you kidding me?” “Oh my god,” Brzezinski added. “Stop right there.” “Wait,” Scarborough said. “She knew before that press conference where she didn’t wear a mask, in front of all of those reporters and had heated exchanges with Fox News reporters?” “Screaming about the river,” Brzezinski added. “She knew that she had been exposed to this disease, and went out and still had a press conference in front of members of the press?” Scarborough said. Lemire agreed that may have happened, although subsequent reporting showed McEnany did not know about Hicks’ positive test until shortly before the news broke Thursday evening. “That’s correct, Joe,” he said. “She still took the podium in the White House briefing room. Yes, she took to the podium in the White House briefing room and spoke to reporters after learning that Hope Hicks had not been feeling well, after learning that Hope Hicks tested positive. The president himself did not interact with reporters, which was noteworthy — that’s rare these days. No reporters had contact with him, other than waving at a distance headed to the helicopter headed to his New Jersey fundraiser.”
Had she known about Hicks’ illness before Thursday’s afternoon briefing, that would have been hard to excuse. However, it seems very unlikely that McEnany would have been contagious on Thursday but only registering positive today, or that she rather than other officials who registered positive last week was the nexus of contagion in the WH press corps. And if she didn’t know about Hicks’ illness until the evening, then it’s a moot point anyway.
Besides, how close is the podium in the briefing room to the front row? It has to be at least six feet away, and the same reporters were wearing masks themselves. It would be better if everyone was masked up, but even the doctors who brief the press in the same room are usually maskless while on the dais.
The problem in this situation is that the American public doesn’t trust anyone in this crisis. Our pal Philip Klein succinctly summed up the institutional moment:
Right now we're dealing with toxic combo:
— A WH that has eroded its credibility for yrs, being evasive & providing mixed or contradictory info.
— A media that has eroded its credibility for yrs, that not only has anti-Trump bias, but more fundamental bias toward drama. — Philip Klein (@philipaklein) October 5, 2020
The truth is that this virus will make its way through the population eventually, regardless of what roadblocks we put up. Masks and social distancing can slow down that transmission rate and reduce viral loads to produce asymptomatic or low-symptom cases, which is why those strategies are so vital until we have an effective and widely available vaccine. Even with those, a virus is going to do what a virus is going to do, and any expectations that it will just “go away” (as the White House and Trump suggested early on) are ridiculous fantasy at this point. If all sides would accept that truth and operate realistically in fighting this pandemic rather than using it to score points, we’d all be better off.


hotair--2020-10-05--Trump received first positive test early on Thursday night, told aides not to disclose it yet

This story has the feel of scandal but ( a ) there are valid reasons why Trump would want to wait for confirmation before disclosing that he was positive and ( b ) the timeline here is much *less* scandalous than the one floated by his doctors on Saturday .
They claimed at the time that he was 72 hours removed from his first diagnosis , which would mean that he had secretly first tested positive on Wednesday — before he hit the trail for a rally in Minnesota and two fundraisers , potentially exposing hundreds to the virus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ timeline . )
The Wall Street Journal ’ s sources say that he didn ’ t know for sure that he had COVID until Thursday night , though , after all of those events had already happened .
He did , however , apparently put people at risk despite having had good reason to believe he might be exposed .
A select group of White House staff , presumably including the president himself , knew on Thursday morning that Hope Hicks had tested positive .
Kayleigh McEnany and other staff who were supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later that day were pulled off the trip at the last second , without explanation .
But Trump went anyway , despite knowing that he ’ d been in close contact with an infected person .
And despite the fact that staffers had sensed the day before that he was “ feeling poorly ” and seemed “ exhausted , ” which they had chalked up to campaign-trail fatigue .
He didn ’ t know for sure that he was positive until Thursday night , though , according to the Journal ’ s sources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Thursday evening before making an appearance on Fox News in which he didn ’ t reveal those results .
Instead , he confirmed earlier reports that one of his top aides had tested positive for coronavirus and mentioned the second test he had taken that night for which he was awaiting results .
Under White House protocols , the more reliable test that screens a specimen from deeper in the nasal passage is administered only after a rapid test shows a positive reading .
Based on people familiar with the matter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protocol .
As the virus spread among the people closest to him , Mr. Trump also asked one adviser not to disclose results of their own positive test .
“ Don ’ t tell anyone , ” Mr. Trump said , according to a person familiar with the conversation… The White House has said the operations team deemed the trip [ to New Jersey for Thursday ’ s fundraiser ] safe .
The president had tested negative on a rapid test that morning , according to a person familiar with the matter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ around anyone during the hours on Thursday night between the time he tested positive on the rapid-test machine and the time that he got confirmation from a PCR test , I think it was appropriate to keep it a secret .
Imagine if the rapid test had delivered a false positive , he had immediately announced that , and then he had to sheepishly update the planet a few hours later that it was a false alarm because his PCR test was clean .
He ’ d have been lambasted for sending everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure that he was infected .
Silence for those few hours was the prudent move .
But silence about Hicks ’ s test that morning , when they had reason to believe an outbreak might be under way at the White House and that hundreds of aides and staffers were at risk ?
Inexcusable .
As was Trump ’ s decision to attend the fundraiser instead of immediately isolating himself until he ’ d tested negative .
He could have at least been tested before leaving , since he knew by then he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to CBS , he wasn ’ t .
Why not ?
One of the more insightful stories about the White House outbreak published this weekend was this one from the Times , revealing the catastrophic flaw in Trump ’ s “ test-only ” strategy for protecting himself .
He wasn ’ t a stickler about masks or social distancing inside the building because , he thought , the Abbott rapid tests used by the White House for people he meets with would keep him safe .
If you want to see POTUS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wait 15 minutes , and if you ’ re negative then you get your meeting with him .
Just one problem : You don ’ t use the rapid test to try to detect asymptomatic carriers , which is how the White House was using it .
You use it to confirm that people who are already visibly sick do in fact have COVID , and those people almost certainly wouldn ’ t be allowed to meet with Trump anyway .
Why none of the many doctors around Trump spied this problem and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Birx , Atlas , Giroir , Conley , on and on — I don ’ t know .
But in hindsight it seems miraculous that he wasn ’ t infected sooner given how weak the chief measure taken to protect him was .
The “ test-only ” strategy would have been weak even if the rapid tests were as accurate as the PCR lab tests , though .
No test is perfectly accurate ; if there ’ s only a one-percent chance of a false negative , over time that risk becomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are administered to people before meeting with Trump .
Precisely because “ test-only ” isn ’ t foolproof , doctors are forever prattling on about the importance of masks and distancing in conjunction with tests .
Together , all three precautions are a formidable defense to infection .
Trump only ever insisted on one , though .
Gottlieb has an op-ed today co-written with Yuval Levin emphasizing that not only is test-only a bad way to approach the virus , it ’ s gone hand-in-hand with misinformation fed to the president about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than anyone thinks .
That ’ s an obvious dig at Scott Atlas .
Trump ’ s habit of surrounding himself with people who are telling him what he wants to hear may have led him to let down his guard against the virus , possibly even in the belief that he might be immune already .
He ’ d met many thousands of people since the pandemic began and hadn ’ t gotten sick yet , right ?
Maybe he had “ cross-immunity !
” He found out the truth the hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come back to the timeline .
When , exactly , did the president get infected ?
Was it at the suspected superspreader event at the White House last Saturday to announce Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination , which included plenty of festivities indoors , with close contact ?
Was it at debate prep in the days before that ?
It would be unusual for a patient who was infected shortly before he tested positive to already need steroid treatment a few days after diagnosis : I ’ ll leave you with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve been thinking of ever since .
It ’ s speculation , but it ’ s provocative .
A Twitter pal noticed that last Monday ’ s White House press conference to discuss coronavirus testing featured a strange two-podium format .
Trump stood alone at one podium while the other speakers , including Pence and Giroir , used a second one that was set up a dozen or so feet away .
You can watch the video of it here .
That was September 28 , two days after the Barrett ceremony in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate , and three days before Trump tested positive .
I have *never* seen them use two podiums for a presser before , with Trump given his own individual mic while other officials share a second one at a safe distance away from him .
I can ’ t come up with a reason why they ’ d bother doing that apart from the obvious one , which is that someone had reason to believe Trump was infected as far back as a week ago .
That would mean there were suspicions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even before he faced off with Biden .
What ’ s the innocent explanation for the two-podium arrangement ?
Why couldn ’ t Pence use the same mic as Trump , as he normally does ?
Update : Ah , good catch by Chris Field of The Blaze .
They *have* used the two-podium set-up at least once before .
Here ’ s a photo of it from May 11 of this year .
I ’ m curious to know why they used it on that occasion and then last Monday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ two-podiums speculation .
The White House used this set-up twice in July , he points out .
It ’ s rare but it ’ s not unheard of .
I still haven ’ t seen an explanation for why they did it , though .
Did they have reason to believe in those earlier cases that someone *might* be infected and used two podiums out of an abundance of caution ?
There ’ s no obvious reason to use two except to enable social distancing .

This story has the feel of scandal but (a) there are valid reasons why Trump would want to wait for confirmation before disclosing that he was positive and (b) the timeline here is much *less* scandalous than the one floated by his doctors on Saturday. They claimed at the time that he was 72 hours removed from his first diagnosis, which would mean that he had secretly first tested positive on Wednesday — before he hit the trail for a rally in Minnesota and two fundraisers, potentially exposing hundreds to the virus. (His doctors later walked back that timeline.) The Wall Street Journal’s sources say that he didn’t know for sure that he had COVID until Thursday night, though, after all of those events had already happened.
He did, however, apparently put people at risk despite having had good reason to believe he might be exposed. A select group of White House staff, presumably including the president himself, knew on Thursday morning that Hope Hicks had tested positive. Kayleigh McEnany and other staff who were supposed to attend the fundraiser in New Jersey later that day were pulled off the trip at the last second, without explanation. But Trump went anyway, despite knowing that he’d been in close contact with an infected person. And despite the fact that staffers had sensed the day before that he was “feeling poorly” and seemed “exhausted,” which they had chalked up to campaign-trail fatigue.
He didn’t know for sure that he was positive until Thursday night, though, according to the Journal’s sources:
Mr. Trump received a positive result on Thursday evening before making an appearance on Fox News in which he didn’t reveal those results. Instead, he confirmed earlier reports that one of his top aides had tested positive for coronavirus and mentioned the second test he had taken that night for which he was awaiting results. Under White House protocols, the more reliable test that screens a specimen from deeper in the nasal passage is administered only after a rapid test shows a positive reading. Based on people familiar with the matter, the president’s tests followed that protocol. As the virus spread among the people closest to him, Mr. Trump also asked one adviser not to disclose results of their own positive test. “Don’t tell anyone,” Mr. Trump said, according to a person familiar with the conversation… The White House has said the operations team deemed the trip [to New Jersey for Thursday’s fundraiser] safe. The president had tested negative on a rapid test that morning, according to a person familiar with the matter.
As long as Trump wasn’t around anyone during the hours on Thursday night between the time he tested positive on the rapid-test machine and the time that he got confirmation from a PCR test, I think it was appropriate to keep it a secret. Imagine if the rapid test had delivered a false positive, he had immediately announced that, and then he had to sheepishly update the planet a few hours later that it was a false alarm because his PCR test was clean. He’d have been lambasted for sending everyone into a panic before he knew for sure that he was infected. Silence for those few hours was the prudent move.
But silence about Hicks’s test that morning, when they had reason to believe an outbreak might be under way at the White House and that hundreds of aides and staffers were at risk? Inexcusable. As was Trump’s decision to attend the fundraiser instead of immediately isolating himself until he’d tested negative. He could have at least been tested before leaving, since he knew by then he might have been infected by Hicks. According to CBS, he wasn’t. Why not?
NEW: Despite the WH learning of Hope Hicks's positive diagnosis just before leaving for NJ, Pres Trump didn't get a rapid test until AFTER his return. It was positive, prompting the PCR test, a WH official tells @CBSNews. He called into Hannity while awaiting the PCR results. — Sara Cook (@saraecook) October 3, 2020
One of the more insightful stories about the White House outbreak published this weekend was this one from the Times, revealing the catastrophic flaw in Trump’s “test-only” strategy for protecting himself. He wasn’t a stickler about masks or social distancing inside the building because, he thought, the Abbott rapid tests used by the White House for people he meets with would keep him safe. If you want to see POTUS, you take the test, you wait 15 minutes, and if you’re negative then you get your meeting with him. Just one problem:
In issuing an emergency use authorization, the Food and Drug Administration said the test was only to be used by a health care provider “within the first seven days of symptoms.” The ID Now has several qualities in its favor: It’s portable, doesn’t need skilled technicians to operate and delivers results in 15 minutes. Used to evaluate someone with symptoms, the test can quickly and easily diagnose Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. But in people who are infected but not yet showing symptoms, the test is much less accurate, missing as many as one in three cases.
You don’t use the rapid test to try to detect asymptomatic carriers, which is how the White House was using it. You use it to confirm that people who are already visibly sick do in fact have COVID, and those people almost certainly wouldn’t be allowed to meet with Trump anyway. Why none of the many doctors around Trump spied this problem and moved to address it sooner — Fauci, Birx, Atlas, Giroir, Conley, on and on — I don’t know. But in hindsight it seems miraculous that he wasn’t infected sooner given how weak the chief measure taken to protect him was.
The “test-only” strategy would have been weak even if the rapid tests were as accurate as the PCR lab tests, though. No test is perfectly accurate; if there’s only a one-percent chance of a false negative, over time that risk becomes considerable as hundreds and hundreds of tests are administered to people before meeting with Trump. Precisely because “test-only” isn’t foolproof, doctors are forever prattling on about the importance of masks and distancing in conjunction with tests. Together, all three precautions are a formidable defense to infection. Trump only ever insisted on one, though.
"Quite frankly, I don't think they took enough steps to protect the President," says @ScottGottliebMD. "They basically were depending on testing alone to keep the president safe because they weren't taking adequate measures inside the White House compound." pic.twitter.com/uXQa1l7BBT — Squawk Box (@SquawkCNBC) October 5, 2020
Gottlieb has an op-ed today co-written with Yuval Levin emphasizing that not only is test-only a bad way to approach the virus, it’s gone hand-in-hand with misinformation fed to the president about how America may be closer to herd immunity than anyone thinks. That’s an obvious dig at Scott Atlas. Trump’s habit of surrounding himself with people who are telling him what he wants to hear may have led him to let down his guard against the virus, possibly even in the belief that he might be immune already. He’d met many thousands of people since the pandemic began and hadn’t gotten sick yet, right? Maybe he had “cross-immunity!” He found out the truth the hard way.
In the end, we come back to the timeline. When, exactly, did the president get infected? Was it at the suspected superspreader event at the White House last Saturday to announce Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination, which included plenty of festivities indoors, with close contact? Was it at debate prep in the days before that? It would be unusual for a patient who was infected shortly before he tested positive to already need steroid treatment a few days after diagnosis:
This is also entirely inconsistent with a Thursday diagnosis, given anything near daily testing. We're now less than 72 hours in from first positive test. Given that, I'd expect the first symptoms to be appearing now and serious respiratory distress to be 4-5 days off. — Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) October 4, 2020
I’ll leave you with a tweet I saw yesterday which I’ve been thinking of ever since. It’s speculation, but it’s provocative. A Twitter pal noticed that last Monday’s White House press conference to discuss coronavirus testing featured a strange two-podium format. Trump stood alone at one podium while the other speakers, including Pence and Giroir, used a second one that was set up a dozen or so feet away. You can watch the video of it here. That was September 28, two days after the Barrett ceremony in the Rose Garden, one day before the debate, and three days before Trump tested positive. I have *never* seen them use two podiums for a presser before, with Trump given his own individual mic while other officials share a second one at a safe distance away from him. I can’t come up with a reason why they’d bother doing that apart from the obvious one, which is that someone had reason to believe Trump was infected as far back as a week ago. That would mean there were suspicions days before his positive test on Thursday, even before he faced off with Biden. What’s the innocent explanation for the two-podium arrangement? Why couldn’t Pence use the same mic as Trump, as he normally does?
Update: Ah, good catch by Chris Field of The Blaze. They *have* used the two-podium set-up at least once before. Here’s a photo of it from May 11 of this year. I’m curious to know why they used it on that occasion and then last Monday.
Update: Guy Benson further debunks the two-podiums speculation. The White House used this set-up twice in July, he points out. It’s rare but it’s not unheard of. I still haven’t seen an explanation for why they did it, though. Did they have reason to believe in those earlier cases that someone *might* be infected and used two podiums out of an abundance of caution? There’s no obvious reason to use two except to enable social distancing.


hotair--2020-10-05--Trump protester has a meltdown outside Walter Reed

There ’ s a video that ’ s getting a lot of attention on Twitter today of a female protester who created quite a scene outside Walter Reed hospital last night .
I ’ m going to take this in chronological order .
All of these clips were shot by Brendan Gutenschwager .
We start with the scene last night before the protester arrived .
It was a bunch of Trump supporters waving flags and cheering for the president to get well .
Pickup trucks with other supporters were coming by and police were doing their best to keep everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At some point , this female protester showed up and started calling everyone Nazis .
She holds a sign which reads “ Trump 2020 = [ Nazi flag ] ” As you can see , there ’ s an interaction with one guy holding a Trump flag but it doesn ’ t look like anyone is touched .
Nevertheless , the protester says she ’ s been harassed and “ will be filing charges.
” The same woman then tried to talk with police about having the man arrested but as you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
She claims her brother was punched in the face .
The brother is gone but she wants people arrested for ( allegedly ) pushing her .
It ’ s not clear if any of this actually happened .
This next clip was posted later , but it happened immediately after the clip above .
The officers are explaining that they didn ’ t witness an assault and she ’ s shouting at them and trying to lead them to another officer who allegedly did witness it .
Eventually this ends with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the officers on the scene .
I ’ m not 100 % sure these next two clips are in order but at some point the same woman was trying to interrupt live shots being done by local news crews : Why is she doing this ?
She appears to be claiming that media crew members trying to keep her from walking through their live shots are assaulting her .
Now we get to the clip that is circulating widely .
The protester is back to claiming the man with the red flag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different police officers this time and when they try to listen to her story she gets defensive and wants their names and won ’ t give her name .
The police finally give up and walk away .
The alleged victim of harassment appears to be verbally harassing the Trump supporters ( note : NSFW language ) .
In her next attempt to make a report to police she accuses the officers of shooting people in their sleep .
I ’ m guessing this is a reference to the Breonna Taylor shooting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her sleep .
In any case , she ’ s now threatening to sue all of the officers who are there .
This ends with her and her friend trying to call the police because the half-dozen police on scene aren ’ t the police she wants .
And that seems to be the end of it .
What did any of that accomplish ?
Did she ever file a report ?
Your guess is as good as mine .

There’s a video that’s getting a lot of attention on Twitter today of a female protester who created quite a scene outside Walter Reed hospital last night. I’m going to take this in chronological order. All of these clips were shot by Brendan Gutenschwager. We start with the scene last night before the protester arrived. It was a bunch of Trump supporters waving flags and cheering for the president to get well.
A man leads the crowd in cheers of “Get well, President Trump” here in Bethesda, Maryland #Trump #WalterReed #WalterReedHospital pic.twitter.com/qc4aT5lRhX — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) October 5, 2020
Pickup trucks with other supporters were coming by and police were doing their best to keep everyone safe and to keep traffic moving:
Trucks are coming by with more Trump supporters here at Walter Reed, with police swooping in to keep traffic moving #Trump #Trump2020 #WalterReed #WalterReedHospital pic.twitter.com/C7Nav9lrf2 — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) October 5, 2020
At some point, this female protester showed up and started calling everyone Nazis. She holds a sign which reads “Trump 2020 = [Nazi flag]” As you can see, there’s an interaction with one guy holding a Trump flag but it doesn’t look like anyone is touched. Nevertheless, the protester says she’s been harassed and “will be filing charges.”
A counter-protester came out to call the Trump crowd Nazis. She left fairly quickly without incident, though claimed she’d be “filing charges” #Trump #Trump2020 #WalterReed #WalterReedHospital pic.twitter.com/u4XVsAQfLA — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) October 5, 2020
The same woman then tried to talk with police about having the man arrested but as you can see it’s not going very well. She claims her brother was punched in the face. The brother is gone but she wants people arrested for (allegedly) pushing her. It’s not clear if any of this actually happened.
A woman is demanding police intervene and arrest some of the Trump supporters she claims assaulted her. Police are having trouble getting her to tell them what happened #Trump #WalterReed #WalterReedHospital pic.twitter.com/1QFWXYHaaE — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) October 5, 2020
This next clip was posted later, but it happened immediately after the clip above. The officers are explaining that they didn’t witness an assault and she’s shouting at them and trying to lead them to another officer who allegedly did witness it. Eventually this ends with her threatening to file complaints against all of the officers on the scene.
“I’m filing a complaint against you, and you” An earlier excerpt from tonight’s demonstrations outside Walter Reed #Trump #WalterReed #WalterReedHospital pic.twitter.com/4ByfAISZKd — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) October 5, 2020
I’m not 100% sure these next two clips are in order but at some point the same woman was trying to interrupt live shots being done by local news crews:
The counter-protester takes to blocking cameras as press tries to de-escalate the situation and get people away from their setup #Trump #WalterReed #WalterReedHospital pic.twitter.com/uUZSII5J6O — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) October 5, 2020
Why is she doing this? She appears to be claiming that media crew members trying to keep her from walking through their live shots are assaulting her.
The protester walks into live mainstream media shots to try to disrupt the scene around the hospital #Trump #WalterReed #WalterReedHospital pic.twitter.com/5sEb0qgcvK — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) October 5, 2020
Now we get to the clip that is circulating widely. The protester is back to claiming the man with the red flag assaulted her. She talking with two different police officers this time and when they try to listen to her story she gets defensive and wants their names and won’t give her name. The police finally give up and walk away.
“He assaulted me and I want to file charges. Now. NOW!” An anti-Trump protester demands police make arrests here outside the hospital #Trump #WalterReed #WalterReedHospital pic.twitter.com/h6alNSQy3K — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) October 5, 2020
The alleged victim of harassment appears to be verbally harassing the Trump supporters (note: NSFW language).
“That’s where we’re going – fascism” The protester goes live on Instagram to confront the Trump supporters outside Walter Reed #Trump #WalterReed #WalterReedHospital pic.twitter.com/0lsMrCc0lf — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) October 5, 2020
In her next attempt to make a report to police she accuses the officers of shooting people in their sleep. I’m guessing this is a reference to the Breonna Taylor shooting, though Taylor wasn’t shot in her sleep. In any case, she’s now threatening to sue all of the officers who are there.
Police struggle to get a clear report from the woman, who insists she now wants Montgomery County officers to intervene #Trump #WalterReed #WalterReedHospital pic.twitter.com/hXk42ZKtlz — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) October 5, 2020
This ends with her and her friend trying to call the police because the half-dozen police on scene aren’t the police she wants. And that seems to be the end of it. What did any of that accomplish? Did she ever file a report? Your guess is as good as mine.


hotair--2020-10-05--Meadows: "Optimistic" Trump might get out of hospital today

Could Donald Trump ’ s bout with COVID-19 be over — or are there other priorities in play here ?
Chief of staff Mark Meadows told Fox News this morning that they ’ re “ optimistic ” that Trump could make it back to the White House by this afternoon , thanks to his “ unbelievable progress.
” The Associated Press reported the same thing earlier in the morning : President Donald Trump was hoping for a Monday discharge from the military hospital where he is being treated for COVID-19 , a day after he briefly ventured out while contagious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a move that disregarded precautions meant to contain the deadly virus that has killed more than 209,000 Americans .
White House officials said Trump was anxious to be released after three nights at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center , where doctors revealed on Sunday that his blood oxygen level dropped suddenly twice in recent days and that they gave him a steroid typically only recommended for the very sick .
Still , the doctors said Trump ’ s health is improving and volunteered that he could be discharged as early as Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the White House .
“ This is an important day as the president continues to improve and is ready to get back to a normal work schedule , ” White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told Fox News on Monday .
He said the determination on whether Trump would leave the hospital won ’ t be made until later in the day after the president is evaluated by his medical team , but that Trump was “ optimistic ” he could be released Monday .
Less than one month until Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strength despite his illness .
The still-infectious president surprised supporters who had gathered outside the hospital , driving by in a black SUV with the windows rolled up .
Secret Service agents inside the vehicle could be seen in masks and other protective gear .
The optic benefits of a discharge are obvious , but … what ’ s the rush ?
According to the president ’ s doctors , Trump was symptomatic enough to necessitate a hospitalization on Friday .
Walter Reed has a presidential suite in place with all of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comfort , if not in style .
And since he ’ ll have to quarantine anyway , why not relax at the Bethesda White House for a few more days , where doctors can keep a close eye on him , especially with a disease that ’ s known to be tough to shake off on the first pass ?
To be fair , though , there are reasons for an American president to project strength outside of the obvious political considerations , in or out of an election year .
An incapacitated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our enemies , and it unsettles investors and allies in ways that can cost jobs and damage our short-term economic prospects .
If Trump can safely be released and avoid that , that ’ s beneficial in a wider sense than just for his ego .
Speaking of safety , the drive-by turned out to be a lot less problematic than yesterday ’ s handwringing supposed , at least to a former White House physician .
Dr. William Lang told CNN yesterday that the added risk was “ tiny , ” and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better than people suppose : CABRERA : Joining us now CNN Political Correspondent Abby Phillip and former White House Physician William Lang .
Dr. Lang , I want to ask you about the drive-by .
Did the president needlessly put the Secret Service officers at risk for this photo-op ?
DR. WILLIAM LANG , FORMER WHITE HOUSE PHYSICIAN : Well , everything you do has risks and benefits .
He wore a mask , the Secret Service agents who a mask , most likely N95 masks .
By all of them wearing N95 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly from the pictures but that ’ s what you would expect to happen .
That makes the risk actually very , very small .
Is there an increased risk ?
Maybe tiny .
But they took measures to reduce the risk and that ’ s what it ’ s all about , is risk management , risk reduction .
CABRERA : You ’ ve got to also wonder about the president ’ s health and whether this was in his best interest .
The president says in this video that it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like it ’ s over .
Doctor , based on what we learned from his medical team today about his oxygen saturation levels having dropped at least a couple of times below 94 percent saturation , and also the fact that he needed supplemental oxygen , that he had a high fever on Friday , the fact that he ’ s on some very serious treatments , including an experimental treatment that hasn ’ t even been cleared for emergency operation use , the fact that he ’ s had remdesivir and continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two and we ’ re expecting a five-day treatment , according to his doctor .
The fact that he ’ s now on this steroid that ’ s only given to the most severely ill , is the president in the clear at this point ?
LANG : Well , the fact is that he is the president of the United States .
And , of course , they are going to throw everything at him to get him as well as they can as fast as they can .
He has never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things that I find very interesting is when you talk to a patient who has any kind of respiratory illness , one of the first things you do is listen to them .
You listen to the way they talk .
When you listen to his tone , his ability to talk in complete sentences , how he sounded in the release just a few minutes ago , he sounded very strong .
So that tends to — that gives you a very , very good indication that he does not have significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , the only real complaint that the president has had has been the fever .
Even when his oxygen saturation dropped below 94 percent , as Dr. Conley noted on Friday , which was the reason that they — one of the main reasons why they decided they wanted to bring him to Walter Reed to watch more carefully , and then , again yesterday , he was never symptomatic .
So that , as many docs will say , we ’ re finding with a lot of the COVID- 19 patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptomatic .
But , still , he appears to be feeling pretty good .
He sounded very good in that last release that we had .
So he does seem to be on the mend .
Now , can that change ?
Sure .
And that ’ s the reason why it ’ s very , very important to maintain a close watch over where he stands .
Still , the “ big deal ” is that it ’ s an unnecessary addition of risk , even if it is “ tiny , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same is true of an expedited release .
If Trump can do the job from Walter Reed , it seems like a no-brainer to stick around there for a couple of more days until doctors can be confident that the acute stage of the disease has passed .
That will leave the president plenty of time to make more campaign appearances via Zoom , and videos for his re-election efforts , which will be all he ’ ll be able to do for a while anyway .

Could Donald Trump’s bout with COVID-19 be over — or are there other priorities in play here? Chief of staff Mark Meadows told Fox News this morning that they’re “optimistic” that Trump could make it back to the White House by this afternoon, thanks to his “unbelievable progress.” The Associated Press reported the same thing earlier in the morning:
Watch: WH Chief of Staff Mark Meadows says @realDonaldTrump is making “unbelievable progress” and is “ready to get back to a normal work schedule,” adding that doctors will reevaluate and make a decision to discharge him later today pic.twitter.com/FubqUcCxVY — TV News HQ (@TVNewsHQ) October 5, 2020
President Donald Trump was hoping for a Monday discharge from the military hospital where he is being treated for COVID-19, a day after he briefly ventured out while contagious to salute cheering supporters by motorcade in a move that disregarded precautions meant to contain the deadly virus that has killed more than 209,000 Americans. White House officials said Trump was anxious to be released after three nights at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where doctors revealed on Sunday that his blood oxygen level dropped suddenly twice in recent days and that they gave him a steroid typically only recommended for the very sick. Still, the doctors said Trump’s health is improving and volunteered that he could be discharged as early as Monday to continue the remainder of his treatment at the White House. “This is an important day as the president continues to improve and is ready to get back to a normal work schedule,” White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told Fox News on Monday. He said the determination on whether Trump would leave the hospital won’t be made until later in the day after the president is evaluated by his medical team, but that Trump was “optimistic” he could be released Monday. Less than one month until Election Day, Trump was eager to project strength despite his illness. The still-infectious president surprised supporters who had gathered outside the hospital, driving by in a black SUV with the windows rolled up. Secret Service agents inside the vehicle could be seen in masks and other protective gear.
The optic benefits of a discharge are obvious, but … what’s the rush? According to the president’s doctors, Trump was symptomatic enough to necessitate a hospitalization on Friday. Walter Reed has a presidential suite in place with all of the tools Trump needs to conduct business in comfort, if not in style. And since he’ll have to quarantine anyway, why not relax at the Bethesda White House for a few more days, where doctors can keep a close eye on him, especially with a disease that’s known to be tough to shake off on the first pass?
To be fair, though, there are reasons for an American president to project strength outside of the obvious political considerations, in or out of an election year. An incapacitated president invites all sorts of mischief from our enemies, and it unsettles investors and allies in ways that can cost jobs and damage our short-term economic prospects. If Trump can safely be released and avoid that, that’s beneficial in a wider sense than just for his ego.
Speaking of safety, the drive-by turned out to be a lot less problematic than yesterday’s handwringing supposed, at least to a former White House physician. Dr. William Lang told CNN yesterday that the added risk was “tiny,” and that Trump appears to be doing a lot better than people suppose:
Former White House physician Dr. William Lang: Trump’s short drive outside the hospital produced only a “very, very small” risk to the Secret Service agents. Trump “sounded very strong.” pic.twitter.com/96JdEKqMSC — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) October 5, 2020
CABRERA: Joining us now CNN Political Correspondent Abby Phillip and former White House Physician William Lang. Dr. Lang, I want to ask you about the drive-by. Did the president needlessly put the Secret Service officers at risk for this photo-op? DR. WILLIAM LANG, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PHYSICIAN: Well, everything you do has risks and benefits. He wore a mask, the Secret Service agents who a mask, most likely N95 masks. By all of them wearing N95 masks, you couldn’t tell exactly from the pictures but that’s what you would expect to happen. That makes the risk actually very, very small. Is there an increased risk? Maybe tiny. But they took measures to reduce the risk and that’s what it’s all about, is risk management, risk reduction. CABRERA: You’ve got to also wonder about the president’s health and whether this was in his best interest. The president says in this video that it’s been an interesting journey, almost like it’s over. Doctor, based on what we learned from his medical team today about his oxygen saturation levels having dropped at least a couple of times below 94 percent saturation, and also the fact that he needed supplemental oxygen, that he had a high fever on Friday, the fact that he’s on some very serious treatments, including an experimental treatment that hasn’t even been cleared for emergency operation use, the fact that he’s had remdesivir and continue those treatments. He’s had two and we’re expecting a five-day treatment, according to his doctor. The fact that he’s now on this steroid that’s only given to the most severely ill, is the president in the clear at this point? LANG: Well, the fact is that he is the president of the United States. And, of course, they are going to throw everything at him to get him as well as they can as fast as they can. He has never been significantly symptomatic. One of the things that I find very interesting is when you talk to a patient who has any kind of respiratory illness, one of the first things you do is listen to them. You listen to the way they talk. When you listen to his tone, his ability to talk in complete sentences, how he sounded in the release just a few minutes ago, he sounded very strong. So that tends to — that gives you a very, very good indication that he does not have significant, active respiratory disease. And throughout this, the only real complaint that the president has had has been the fever. Even when his oxygen saturation dropped below 94 percent, as Dr. Conley noted on Friday, which was the reason that they — one of the main reasons why they decided they wanted to bring him to Walter Reed to watch more carefully, and then, again yesterday, he was never symptomatic. So that, as many docs will say, we’re finding with a lot of the COVID- 19 patients, they don’t get too symptomatic. But, still, he appears to be feeling pretty good. He sounded very good in that last release that we had. So he does seem to be on the mend. Now, can that change? Sure. And that’s the reason why it’s very, very important to maintain a close watch over where he stands.
Still, the “big deal” is that it’s an unnecessary addition of risk, even if it is “tiny,” as Dr. Lang says. The same is true of an expedited release. If Trump can do the job from Walter Reed, it seems like a no-brainer to stick around there for a couple of more days until doctors can be confident that the acute stage of the disease has passed. That will leave the president plenty of time to make more campaign appearances via Zoom, and videos for his re-election efforts, which will be all he’ll be able to do for a while anyway.


hotair--2020-10-05--How plausible is the NBC poll showing Biden suddenly up 14 points?

I can think of four strikes against it off the top of my head .
1 .
It ’ s a poll of registered , not likely , voters .
Virtually every other pollster has been focused on likely voters for weeks .
2 .
It ’ s an outlier .
No other poll lately shows a lead for Biden this big , including other polls released yesterday .
3 .
It ’ s outdated .
Even if it ’ s on the mark , this poll was conducted before Trump announced he had COVID .
In 2020 , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no poll is accurate for more than like 45 minutes .
4 .
This same pollster had Hillary Clinton up by — ta da — 14 points right around this time in 2016 .
How ’ d that race turn out ?
We ’ ll consider those objections in turn below .
I do think this result is overstating Biden ’ s margin ( or that it ’ s a blip and that it ’ ll return to the status quo of an eight-point Biden lead soon enough ) , but first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
NBC/WSJ has it 53/39 via two days of polling after the debate but before Trump ’ s diagnosis .
That ’ s Biden ’ s biggest lead of the race and shows a six-point swing towards the Democrat since the last survey .
The biggest declines for Trump in the poll come from seniors ( who are now backing Biden by a 62 percent-to-35 percent margin ) and suburban women ( 58 percent to 33 percent ) .
And men 50 years and older moved from a 13-point advantage for Trump in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 1-point advantage for Biden in this latest poll… Additionally , 19 percent of voters say they ’ re more likely to support Biden after the debate , versus 6 percent who say they ’ re more likely to back Trump… The new NBC News/WSJ poll also finds Biden holding a whopping 32-point advantage on which candidate has the better temperament to be president , with 58 percent of voters picking Biden , versus 26 percent picking Trump .
I can certainly believe that Trump hurt himself with his debate performance .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dropped from -11 before the debate to -16 afterward .
I can also believe that he might have done himself the most damage among seniors and suburban women , two groups that might be more inclined to look dimly on bullying , unpresidential behavior .
But a 14-point swing from Trump to Biden among men over 50 , a classic Trump demographic ?
Not likely .
Not likely .
Even if it ’ s not really 53/39 , though , could it be that Biden ’ s lead really has increased since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sh*t ” territory ?
Yeah .
Let ’ s go through the criticisms above .
1 .
The fact that NBC polled registered voters instead of likely voters is questionable , but the higher you expect turnout to be this fall , the less questionable it becomes .
They ’ re betting that turnout will be very , very high , which seems like a safe bet : It ’ s possible that NBC is underestimating a turnout advantage for Trump by using a sample of registered voters , but they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some similarly bizarre amount that would make a 14-point race suddenly look tight .
2 .
It ’ s true that no other recent poll has had Biden up 14 .
In fact , another post-debate poll from IBD/TIPP puts his lead at just three points ( ! )
.
But that one ’ s even more of an outlier than NBC is .
For instance , the Democratic firm Change Research found Biden ahead by 13 in a poll conducted the day of and the day after the debate .
Other polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have him up somewhere between seven and nine .
A new one from Reuters out yesterday — which includes data gathered after Trump ’ s COVID diagnosis — finds him up 10 , slightly higher than where he stood in the weeks before the debate .
There ’ s evidence that the debate may have hurt Trump too .
The NYT released two polls on Saturday showing Biden up seven in Pennsylvania and five in Florida .
The topline numbers didn ’ t move much after the debate but the marks for Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : It ’ s not just the public surveys either .
“ Multiple party strategists said their polling in the two nights after the presidential debate had revealed substantial slippage , and not just at the top of the ticket , ” the Times warned in a story published Friday .
Axios added that “ Some top GOP operatives , privy to data from swing states , tell me that this week ’ s chaotic presidential debate had a calamitous effect on Republican chances in tight Senate races , ” with one source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capable of this kind of behavior , but these voters had never had 90 straight minutes of that behavior thrust in their faces.
” Whether people were alienated by Trump ’ s boorishness or surprised that Biden wasn ’ t drooling on himself — or both — there ’ s now ample evidence that Trump ’ s big opportunity in Cleveland for a gamechanger wasn ’ t a gamechanger .
Unless it changed the game in Biden ’ s favor .
3 .
It ’ s true that the NBC data is outdated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump ’ s battle with COVID .
But as noted , the new Reuters poll *does* include reaction and they still have Biden doing slightly better today than he did last month .
Quote : “ 65 % , including 9 in 10 registered Democrats and 5 in 10 registered Republicans , agreed that ‘ if President Trump had taken coronavirus more seriously , he probably would not have been infected . '
” ABC asked a question in that same vein and got this result , also published yesterday : Voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think he ’ ll be able to perform his duties as president if there ’ s a crisis , a grimly ironic twist on the endless GOP messaging about Biden not being up to the demands of the job .
Once the president recovers , there ’ ll be lots of hot takes about Trump gaining ground in the polls because of public sympathy , because he ’ s a “ fighter , ” or what have you .
If he had gotten COVID despite taking every possible precaution , I think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people see him as negligent in protecting himself and the people around him , sympathy will be limited .
And because his negligence in protecting himself jibes with public perceptions that he ’ s done a poor job protecting the country , it arguably deepens his biggest electoral liability .
I ’ d expect to see him get a small sympathy bounce once he ’ s over the virus , but it wouldn ’ t shock me to see Biden ’ s polls inch up either as new infections stemming from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be reported .
4 .
NBC ’ s 2016 poll showing Clinton up 14 in mid-October does feel awfully silly in hindsight… … which invites us to conclude that the new data is silly too .
But remember : That 2016 poll wasn ’ t a crazy outlier at that moment in the campaign .
That was right after the “ Access Hollywood ” tape dropped , the worst stretch of polling Trump had during that race .
Scroll down here to mid-October and you ’ ll find multiple surveys placing Clinton ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the aftermath .
It probably *is* the case that she led very big in mid-October .
Her lead ended up collapsing due to other circumstances : Wikileaks probably took a chunk out of her , the Comey letter took a big chunk , and the simple fact that Trump was the “ change ” candidate led late deciders to break for him by a huge margin .
The encouraging part of that for Trump fans is the fact that there are still probably , oh , 500 or so blockbuster news developments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pace of 2020 .
Big things could happen , theoretically , that shift the race towards him in a hurry .
But that doesn ’ t mean NBC ’ s poll is wrong .
And he ’ s running out of time .

I can think of four strikes against it off the top of my head.
1. It’s a poll of registered, not likely, voters. Virtually every other pollster has been focused on likely voters for weeks.
2. It’s an outlier. No other poll lately shows a lead for Biden this big, including other polls released yesterday.
3. It’s outdated. Even if it’s on the mark, this poll was conducted before Trump announced he had COVID. In 2020, when 17 blockbuster news stories happen every day, no poll is accurate for more than like 45 minutes.
4. This same pollster had Hillary Clinton up by — ta da — 14 points right around this time in 2016. How’d that race turn out?
We’ll consider those objections in turn below. I do think this result is overstating Biden’s margin (or that it’s a blip and that it’ll return to the status quo of an eight-point Biden lead soon enough), but first let’s look at the details. NBC/WSJ has it 53/39 via two days of polling after the debate but before Trump’s diagnosis. That’s Biden’s biggest lead of the race and shows a six-point swing towards the Democrat since the last survey.
The biggest declines for Trump in the poll come from seniors (who are now backing Biden by a 62 percent-to-35 percent margin) and suburban women (58 percent to 33 percent). And men 50 years and older moved from a 13-point advantage for Trump in the pre-debate NBC News/WSJ poll, to a 1-point advantage for Biden in this latest poll… Additionally, 19 percent of voters say they’re more likely to support Biden after the debate, versus 6 percent who say they’re more likely to back Trump… The new NBC News/WSJ poll also finds Biden holding a whopping 32-point advantage on which candidate has the better temperament to be president, with 58 percent of voters picking Biden, versus 26 percent picking Trump.
I can certainly believe that Trump hurt himself with his debate performance. In fact, NBC finds his favorable rating dropped from -11 before the debate to -16 afterward. I can also believe that he might have done himself the most damage among seniors and suburban women, two groups that might be more inclined to look dimly on bullying, unpresidential behavior.
But a 14-point swing from Trump to Biden among men over 50, a classic Trump demographic? Not likely. Not likely.
Even if it’s not really 53/39, though, could it be that Biden’s lead really has increased since the debate and is now in “oh sh*t” territory? Yeah. Let’s go through the criticisms above.
1. The fact that NBC polled registered voters instead of likely voters is questionable, but the higher you expect turnout to be this fall, the less questionable it becomes. They’re betting that turnout will be very, very high, which seems like a safe bet:
Our bipartisan team of pollsters has chosen to use only reg voters for the rest of the election — due to the sky-high interest, record early voting and all the mail-in ballots. Also, our poll uses voter-file lists, so we also know who these voters are + past voting history — Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics) October 4, 2020
It’s possible that NBC is underestimating a turnout advantage for Trump by using a sample of registered voters, but they’re not underestimating it by 10 points or some similarly bizarre amount that would make a 14-point race suddenly look tight.
2. It’s true that no other recent poll has had Biden up 14. In fact, another post-debate poll from IBD/TIPP puts his lead at just three points(!). But that one’s even more of an outlier than NBC is. For instance, the Democratic firm Change Research found Biden ahead by 13 in a poll conducted the day of and the day after the debate. Other polls published this week (including Rasmussen) have him up somewhere between seven and nine. A new one from Reuters out yesterday — which includes data gathered after Trump’s COVID diagnosis — finds him up 10, slightly higher than where he stood in the weeks before the debate.
There’s evidence that the debate may have hurt Trump too. The NYT released two polls on Saturday showing Biden up seven in Pennsylvania and five in Florida. The topline numbers didn’t move much after the debate but the marks for Trump’s performance on Tuesday were brutal:
Voters disapproved of the president’s conduct in the debate by a margin of 65 percent to 25 percent. More than half of voters said they strongly disapproved of his conduct… The revulsion against Mr. Trump’s performance extended well into his reliable base. One-third of the president’s supporters said they disapproved of his performance, including 11 percent who did so strongly. A modest but potentially significant 8 percent of people who backed him in the survey said the debate made them less likely to support Mr. Trump’s candidacy… The share of voters who thought Mr. Trump had the temperament and personality to be president dropped by more than a net 10 percentage points.
It’s not just the public surveys either. “Multiple party strategists said their polling in the two nights after the presidential debate had revealed substantial slippage, and not just at the top of the ticket,” the Times warned in a story published Friday. Axios added that “Some top GOP operatives, privy to data from swing states, tell me that this week’s chaotic presidential debate had a calamitous effect on Republican chances in tight Senate races,” with one source noting, “Everyone knew Trump was capable of this kind of behavior, but these voters had never had 90 straight minutes of that behavior thrust in their faces.”
Whether people were alienated by Trump’s boorishness or surprised that Biden wasn’t drooling on himself — or both — there’s now ample evidence that Trump’s big opportunity in Cleveland for a gamechanger wasn’t a gamechanger. Unless it changed the game in Biden’s favor.
3. It’s true that the NBC data is outdated because it doesn’t include reaction to Trump’s battle with COVID. But as noted, the new Reuters poll *does* include reaction and they still have Biden doing slightly better today than he did last month. Quote: “65%, including 9 in 10 registered Democrats and 5 in 10 registered Republicans, agreed that ‘if President Trump had taken coronavirus more seriously, he probably would not have been infected.'” ABC asked a question in that same vein and got this result, also published yesterday:
In two separate questions, an identical 72% said that Trump did not take the “risk of contracting the virus seriously enough,” nor “the appropriate precautions when it came to his personal health.” The poll was conducted by Ipsos in partnership with ABC News using Ipsos’ Knowledge Panel on Friday and Saturday, following Trump’s positive test early Friday morning. In each of the two questions, over 2 in 5 (43%) Republicans hold the negative sentiments about Trump’s mindset and preventative actions regarding the coronavirus, compared to 95% and 94% of Democrats, respectively.
Voters are now split 50/50 on whether they think he’ll be able to perform his duties as president if there’s a crisis, a grimly ironic twist on the endless GOP messaging about Biden not being up to the demands of the job. Once the president recovers, there’ll be lots of hot takes about Trump gaining ground in the polls because of public sympathy, because he’s a “fighter,” or what have you. If he had gotten COVID despite taking every possible precaution, I think that would be plausible. But because so many people see him as negligent in protecting himself and the people around him, sympathy will be limited. And because his negligence in protecting himself jibes with public perceptions that he’s done a poor job protecting the country, it arguably deepens his biggest electoral liability. I’d expect to see him get a small sympathy bounce once he’s over the virus, but it wouldn’t shock me to see Biden’s polls inch up either as new infections stemming from the outbreak at the White House continue to be reported.
4. NBC’s 2016 poll showing Clinton up 14 in mid-October does feel awfully silly in hindsight…
While I think Trump is in worse shape overall than 4 yrs ago, before getting to fired up about this one, worth noting that NBC/WSJ poll released 10/10/16 had Clinton up 14 points in head to head matchup 52-38. https://t.co/NkAbK3KHOh https://t.co/sLL57aYnTH — Philip Klein (@philipaklein) October 4, 2020
… which invites us to conclude that the new data is silly too. But remember: That 2016 poll wasn’t a crazy outlier at that moment in the campaign. That was right after the “Access Hollywood” tape dropped, the worst stretch of polling Trump had during that race. Scroll down here to mid-October and you’ll find multiple surveys placing Clinton’s lead at 10 points or higher in the aftermath. It probably *is* the case that she led very big in mid-October. Her lead ended up collapsing due to other circumstances:
Hard to believe it but at this point four years ago, the three most significant determinants of the 2016 campaign hadn’t happened yet: Access Hollywood tape (Oct. 7), Wikileaks dump (Oct. 7-Election Day) and Comey intervention (Oct. 28) — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) October 4, 2020
Wikileaks probably took a chunk out of her, the Comey letter took a big chunk, and the simple fact that Trump was the “change” candidate led late deciders to break for him by a huge margin. The encouraging part of that for Trump fans is the fact that there are still probably, oh, 500 or so blockbuster news developments still to come before Election Day given the pace of 2020. Big things could happen, theoretically, that shift the race towards him in a hurry. But that doesn’t mean NBC’s poll is wrong. And he’s running out of time.


hotair--2020-10-05--James Bond is not coming to the rescue of Cineworld and Regal theatres

There just are not enough big movies coming out to keep theatres open .
Due to the coronavirus pandemic , movie theatres across the country closed in March .
Some were able to re-open in August but movie-goers are reluctant to take in a show .
Theatres were counting on the new James Bond movie , “ No Time to Die ” , to bring in customers .
It was scheduled for a November release but has now been pushed back until April 2021 .
Cineworld , which owns Regal Cinemas , will close 543 of its Regal Cinema venues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.K. and Ireland this week .
The hope is that the closures will be temporary , but the final decision has not been made .
Variety understands that staff were informed of Cineworld ’ s plans on Sunday — ahead of the company ’ s statement — with HR explaining that the closure of all cinemas is “ one option that is strongly being considered , ” though a decision hasn ’ t yet been made .
Variety understands from sources that the chain may close all sites in both countries as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second largest domestic chain in the U.S. , while Cineworld is the U.K. ’ s biggest cinema operator .
Cineworld is in contact with Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden in the U.K. , explaining that keeping the theatres open is unviable and that up to 5,500 jobs are at stake .
The big releases are being delayed and customers are not going back to the movies as hoped due to personal safety concerns with the coronavirus .
The announcement is a shock to workers and they complain about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A “ collective of employees ” ( I assume that means a union ) posted their dismay on Twitter .
After lackluster ticket sales for “ Tenet ” in September , other new movies set for release were shuffled around .
Big markets like New York City and Los Angeles continue to keep movie theatres closed and a new wave of coronavirus cases is hitting Europe .
For now , the next big hope for success at the box office is Pixar ’ s “ Soul ” set to be released on Nov. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made on that one , though , as Disney may move it directly to Disney Plus .
That is what the company ended up doing with “ Mulan ” .
“ Wonder Woman 1984 ” and “ Dune , ” Warner Brothers productions , are still set for December , though there ’ s a chance those movies could also be postponed .
North America is the world ’ s largest theatrical market .
Theatres have grossed more than $ 11 billion each year since 2015 .
In the U.S. , Congress is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Phase 4 government bail-out deal .
Even with assurances from the theatre operators that new safety measures were in place – air ventilation systems , frequent deep cleanings , social distancing between seats , facial mask requirements , and so forth – and drastically reduced ticket price sales promotions , the comeback has been painfully slow .
In the U.S. a major problem is the different restrictions from state to state .
And , it doesn ’ t seem logical to many Americans that restaurants are re-opening and other establishments but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEO has appealed to Governor Cuomo .
So far he hasn ’ t changed his mind .
Regal ’ s decision to close its doors again , less than two months after reopening , is partially because theaters in major U.S. markets like Los Angeles and New York City have yet to reopen .
Mr. Greidinger recently sent a letter to New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , imploring the state to evaluate theaters along similar lines as other indoor venues .
In states such as California and New York , theater owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities have allowed some indoor establishments such as restaurants , bowling alleys and churches to open with capacity restrictions while requiring theaters keep their doors closed .
“ In the cinema , everyone is seated and looks in the same direction…in the restaurant you take off your mask and you sit one in front of the other , ” said Mr. Greidinger .
“ It simply doesn ’ t make sense.
” In August , Mr. Cuomo , a Democrat , addressed movie theaters ’ closures , arguing that they weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that should be allowed to reopen .
“ It is congregate .
It ’ s one ventilation system .
You ’ re seated there for a long period of time.…This is a risky situation , ” he said .
The closures affect more than 500 Regal theaters in the U.S. and 127 Cineworld locations in the U.K. As it happens , today is James Bond Day .
On this day in 1962 , the first Bond movie , “ Dr .
No ” was released .

There just are not enough big movies coming out to keep theatres open. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, movie theatres across the country closed in March. Some were able to re-open in August but movie-goers are reluctant to take in a show.
Theatres were counting on the new James Bond movie, “No Time to Die”, to bring in customers. It was scheduled for a November release but has now been pushed back until April 2021. Cineworld, which owns Regal Cinemas, will close 543 of its Regal Cinema venues in the U.S. and all cinemas across the U.K. and Ireland this week. The hope is that the closures will be temporary, but the final decision has not been made.
Variety understands that staff were informed of Cineworld’s plans on Sunday — ahead of the company’s statement — with HR explaining that the closure of all cinemas is “one option that is strongly being considered,” though a decision hasn’t yet been made. Variety understands from sources that the chain may close all sites in both countries as early as this week. Regal is the second largest domestic chain in the U.S., while Cineworld is the U.K.’s biggest cinema operator.
Cineworld is in contact with Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden in the U.K., explaining that keeping the theatres open is unviable and that up to 5,500 jobs are at stake. The big releases are being delayed and customers are not going back to the movies as hoped due to personal safety concerns with the coronavirus. The announcement is a shock to workers and they complain about being left out of the process. A “collective of employees” (I assume that means a union) posted their dismay on Twitter.
Cineworld staff weren’t informed of the company’s decision in advance of Saturday’s news. Cineworld Action Group, a collective of employees supported by entertainment union Bectu, tweeted on Saturday that “there has been no consultation with staff whatsoever.” News of the closures first emerged via a preview of The Sunday Times’ front page, posted late on Saturday night.
We have found out vital information about our jobs from the media throughout the pandemic. Workers have been left out of discussions that should’ve included our voices. However, in this case it goes beyond belief. To find out you may no longer have a job from the media is awful. — Cineworld Action Group (@cineactiongroup) October 3, 2020
Words cannot express how this feels. Solidarity to all of our colleagues across Cineworld and Picturehouse. 💔 — Cineworld Action Group (@cineactiongroup) October 3, 2020
After lackluster ticket sales for “Tenet” in September, other new movies set for release were shuffled around. Big markets like New York City and Los Angeles continue to keep movie theatres closed and a new wave of coronavirus cases is hitting Europe. For now, the next big hope for success at the box office is Pixar’s “Soul” set to be released on Nov. 20. A decision could still be made on that one, though, as Disney may move it directly to Disney Plus. That is what the company ended up doing with “Mulan”. “Wonder Woman 1984” and “Dune,” Warner Brothers productions, are still set for December, though there’s a chance those movies could also be postponed.
North America is the world’s largest theatrical market. Theatres have grossed more than $11 billion each year since 2015. In the U.S., Congress is being lobbied to include movie theatre operators in the Phase 4 government bail-out deal.
Even with assurances from the theatre operators that new safety measures were in place – air ventilation systems, frequent deep cleanings, social distancing between seats, facial mask requirements, and so forth – and drastically reduced ticket price sales promotions, the comeback has been painfully slow. In the U.S. a major problem is the different restrictions from state to state. And, it doesn’t seem logical to many Americans that restaurants are re-opening and other establishments but not movie theatres. Cineworld’s CEO has appealed to Governor Cuomo. So far he hasn’t changed his mind.
Regal’s decision to close its doors again, less than two months after reopening, is partially because theaters in major U.S. markets like Los Angeles and New York City have yet to reopen. Mr. Greidinger recently sent a letter to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, imploring the state to evaluate theaters along similar lines as other indoor venues. In states such as California and New York, theater owners large and small have expressed bewilderment as authorities have allowed some indoor establishments such as restaurants, bowling alleys and churches to open with capacity restrictions while requiring theaters keep their doors closed. “In the cinema, everyone is seated and looks in the same direction…in the restaurant you take off your mask and you sit one in front of the other,” said Mr. Greidinger. “It simply doesn’t make sense.” In August, Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, addressed movie theaters’ closures, arguing that they weren’t high on the priority list for businesses that should be allowed to reopen. “It is congregate. It’s one ventilation system. You’re seated there for a long period of time.…This is a risky situation,” he said.
The closures affect more than 500 Regal theaters in the U.S. and 127 Cineworld locations in the U.K.
As it happens, today is James Bond Day. On this day in 1962, the first Bond movie, “Dr. No” was released.


hotair--2020-10-05--Alexei Navalny survived poisoning but can he survive Putin?

As we learned a couple of weeks ago , Russian dissident Alexei Navalny bounced back in rather remarkable fashion , going from being in a medically induced coma after being poisoned with Novichok agents to walking out of the hospital under his own power in a matter of weeks .
While recuperating in Germany and planning his return to Russia , Navalny was quick to get back to his usual role of being a huge thorn in Vladimir Putin ’ s side .
Normally , he supports opposition candidates and accuses Putin of corruption , but this time he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flatly accused Putin of being responsible for his attempted assassination .
As you might imagine , this didn ’ t sit well with the Kremlin .
Putin sent out his media henchmen to begin a campaign to blunt Navalny ’ s accusations and undermine his support .
They accused him of working with the Central Intelligence Agency , making him look like a foreign agent .
They also called his claims about Putin ’ s involvement “ insulting and unacceptable.
” ( Washington Examiner ) Six weeks after he was poisoned with Novichok @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agent , Alexey Navalny is now back at work .
Still recuperating in Berlin , Navalny is again calling out the Russian government .
Speaking on Thursday , Vladimir Putin ’ s chief spokesperson reacted fiercely to Navalny ’ s allegation that Putin was responsible for his poisoning .
Navalny is correct in his assertion .
As I noted on Sept. 10 , Novichok agents are only accessible to the big three Russian intelligence services ( the FSB , the SVR , and the GRU ) and only deployable with Putin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the German magazine Der Spiegel , Navalny has clarified what no one in the Kremlin wants to admit — that Navalny ’ s assassination can not be excused as the work of a few disgruntled Chechens .
The denials from Putin ’ s spokespeople are easily disproven .
As Tom Rogan pointed out at the Examiner , the rules regarding the use of Novichok in Russia are well known in intelligence circles .
Navalny pointed out the same thing during his recent interview with Der Spiegel .
There are only three people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that poison .
Those would be the heads of the Federal Security Service ( FSB ) , the Foreign Intelligence Service ( SWR ) or the infamous GRU .
And not one of those three men would pull the trigger on a plot like this without getting Vladimir Putin to sign off on it .
Rogan correctly observes that Navalny has once again managed to get under Putin ’ s skin and is making the powers that be in the Kremlin nervous .
They don ’ t like all the attention that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already threatening to cancel a major pipeline project that they ’ ve had in the works with Russia over Putin ’ s refusal to investigate the poisoning .
And even if they weren ’ t , Putin ’ s ego is too large to let something like this pass without a response .
But the real question for Navalny is precisely what sort of response that will be .
Putin has already ordered numerous raids on the dissident ’ s offices , the seizure of his papers and computers and drummed up criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Navalny persists in his very public efforts to call out the corruption inside the Kremlin .
That situation no doubt led to the initial effort to poison him .
If the plan had gone as Putin ’ s henchmen no doubt imagined , Navalny would have died quickly inside of Russia and some alternate explanation for his death would have been released .
But with his survival and very public accusations lighting up the media world , we have to wonder if Putin won ’ t decide to take a more “ direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some poisoning scheme .
If I were Navalny , I would make sure that I stayed very visible at all times , particularly when he returns to Russia .
He should have cameras rolling whenever he leaves or even returns to his home and keep plenty of witnesses around .
Vladimir Putin isn ’ t exactly known for either his tolerance or his subtlety .
If poison didn ’ t do the job , I wouldn ’ t be the least bit surprised if they try a bullet next time .

As we learned a couple of weeks ago, Russian dissident Alexei Navalny bounced back in rather remarkable fashion, going from being in a medically induced coma after being poisoned with Novichok agents to walking out of the hospital under his own power in a matter of weeks. While recuperating in Germany and planning his return to Russia, Navalny was quick to get back to his usual role of being a huge thorn in Vladimir Putin’s side. Normally, he supports opposition candidates and accuses Putin of corruption, but this time he had a new headline to tout. He flatly accused Putin of being responsible for his attempted assassination.
As you might imagine, this didn’t sit well with the Kremlin. Putin sent out his media henchmen to begin a campaign to blunt Navalny’s accusations and undermine his support. They accused him of working with the Central Intelligence Agency, making him look like a foreign agent. They also called his claims about Putin’s involvement “insulting and unacceptable.” (Washington Examiner)
Six weeks after he was poisoned with Novichok, a highly concentrated and lethal nerve agent, Alexey Navalny is now back at work. Still recuperating in Berlin, Navalny is again calling out the Russian government. The Kremlin isn’t happy. Speaking on Thursday, Vladimir Putin’s chief spokesperson reacted fiercely to Navalny’s allegation that Putin was responsible for his poisoning. Navalny is correct in his assertion. As I noted on Sept. 10, Novichok agents are only accessible to the big three Russian intelligence services (the FSB, the SVR, and the GRU) and only deployable with Putin’s approval. Saying the same thing to the German magazine Der Spiegel, Navalny has clarified what no one in the Kremlin wants to admit — that Navalny’s assassination cannot be excused as the work of a few disgruntled Chechens.
The denials from Putin’s spokespeople are easily disproven. As Tom Rogan pointed out at the Examiner, the rules regarding the use of Novichok in Russia are well known in intelligence circles. Navalny pointed out the same thing during his recent interview with Der Spiegel. There are only three people in Russia who could authorize the use of that poison. Those would be the heads of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the Foreign Intelligence Service (SWR) or the infamous GRU. And not one of those three men would pull the trigger on a plot like this without getting Vladimir Putin to sign off on it.
Rogan correctly observes that Navalny has once again managed to get under Putin’s skin and is making the powers that be in the Kremlin nervous. They don’t like all the attention that this case is drawing internationally. Germany is already threatening to cancel a major pipeline project that they’ve had in the works with Russia over Putin’s refusal to investigate the poisoning. And even if they weren’t, Putin’s ego is too large to let something like this pass without a response.
But the real question for Navalny is precisely what sort of response that will be. Putin has already ordered numerous raids on the dissident’s offices, the seizure of his papers and computers and drummed up criminal charges against him. And yet Alexei Navalny persists in his very public efforts to call out the corruption inside the Kremlin. That situation no doubt led to the initial effort to poison him. If the plan had gone as Putin’s henchmen no doubt imagined, Navalny would have died quickly inside of Russia and some alternate explanation for his death would have been released. But with his survival and very public accusations lighting up the media world, we have to wonder if Putin won’t decide to take a more “direct” approach to solve this problem than some poisoning scheme.
If I were Navalny, I would make sure that I stayed very visible at all times, particularly when he returns to Russia. He should have cameras rolling whenever he leaves or even returns to his home and keep plenty of witnesses around. Vladimir Putin isn’t exactly known for either his tolerance or his subtlety. If poison didn’t do the job, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if they try a bullet next time.