theintercept--2020-10-02--Why You Should Care About the Extradition of Julian Assange

Wait !
Before you go on about your day , ask yourself : How likely is it that the story @ @ @ @ @ been produced by a different news outlet if The Intercept hadn ’ t done it @ @ @ @ @ of media would look like without The Intercept .
Who would hold party elites accountable @ @ @ @ @ to have ?
How many covert wars , miscarriages of justice , and dystopian technologies @ @ @ @ @ reporters weren ’ t on the beat ?
The kind of reporting we do is @ @ @ @ @ it is not easy , cheap , or profitable .
The Intercept is an independent @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have ads , so we depend on our members — 35,000 and @ @ @ @ @ hold the powerful to account .
Joining is simple and doesn ’ t need to @ @ @ @ @ can become a sustaining member for as little as $ 3 or $ 5 a @ @ @ @ @ all it takes to support the journalism you rely on .

Julian Assange’s impending extradition to the United States could set a dangerous new precedent in international law by allowing powerful governments to demand the handing-over of foreign journalists who publish information they deem damaging to their interests. Ryan Grim discusses the Assange case with Kevin Gosztola of Shadowproof. Then, Dana Gottesfeld describes the plight of her husband Martin, a hacktivist and human rights activist currently serving time at a prison in Indiana, similar to the one Assange could end up in.
Ryan Grim: Earlier this week, the nation’s beleaguered voters were subjected to a debate the likes of which had never been seen before on a presidential stage.
Joe Biden: I want to make sure — I want to make the President —
President Donald J. Trump: You graduated last in your class, not first in your class.
Chris Wallace: Can you let him finish, sir?
DJT: — radical left — well, listen.
JB: Would you shut up, man?
DJT: Listen, who is on your list, Joe? Who is on your list?
CW: Gentleman, I think we’ve ended this.
RG: But on the plus side, we learned something interesting about Europeans.
DJT: You know in Europe they live in, forest cities, they call forest cities. They maintain their forests. They manage their forests. I was with the head of a major country. It’s a forest city.
RG: But today on the show, we’re going to flee the United States and head to a courtroom in London, where the Trump administration has launched the most consequential fight over global press freedom in several generations. The press itself has been almost entirely silent about it. So let’s do something about that.
I’m Ryan Grim. Today on Deconstructed: Why you should care about the impending extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.
In that courtroom in London, over the past month, a magistrate has been reviewing a request by U.S. prosecutors, under the direction of Attorney General William Barr, to extradite Wikileaks founder Julian Assange — an Australian citizen — and try him, in the United States, under the Espionage Act. He could face life in prison, in solitary confinement, in a Colorado or Indiana supermax prison.
Newscaster: The arrest was made “on behalf of the United States,” an effort Assange’s lawyers describe as an unprecedented effort to extradite a foreign journalist.
RG: That extradition hearing is now in its fourth week. At issue is whether Assange broke the law in obtaining and publishing leaked documents from former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Nixon administration, made an appearance at the hearing.
So did Khaled Al-Masri, the German-Lebanese man who was mistakenly abducted and handed over to the CIA in 2003, then subjected to gruesome torture by the Bush administration. We only know Al-Masri’s story in full thanks to Assange and Wikileaks. Assange’s case deals with basic questions about the nature of a free press, justice for victims of torture, and accountability for powerful governments.
So why the silence? You might think that liberals would leap at the opportunity to defend the press against a wannabe authoritarian like Trump. His constant assaults on the news media have created a new veneration for journalism on the American left — and look, as a journalist myself, I’m all for that. But when it comes to Assange and Wikileaks, the veneration ends. Why?
The Obama administration came close to prosecuting Assange. But they finally decided, in December 2013, that they couldn’t overcome what they called “The New York Times problem.” Put simply: How can the government charge Wikileaks for publishing sensitive information without also prosecuting The New York Times? Now, the Obama administration understood what it would mean to go after the Times, so ultimately they backed off of Wikileaks.
The Trump administration? No, they have no such scruples. Trump has already said he thinks that U.S. laws around press freedom are too generous to the “fake news media.” Respect for the fourth estate is definitely not holding him back.
But the main reason liberals are reluctant to defend the founder of Wikileaks is his relationship to the Clintons. In 2016, Assange released thousands of emails from the inbox of Hilary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, producing endless damaging stories in the final weeks of the campaign. Among other things, the release included excerpts from Clinton’s private speeches to Goldman Sachs, which she had previously refused to release. For sure, Democrats have good reason to believe the publication of those emails played a major role in her loss. And so as the chains have tightened around Assange, they’ve mostly looked the other way. After all, he was just getting what he had coming.
Back in 2016, when Wikileaks was disseminating embarrassing information about his rival, Donald Trump was their biggest fan.
DJT: Oh, we love WikiLeaks. Boy, they have really —
DJT: Wikileaks!
DJT: It’s been amazing what’s coming out on WikiLeaks.
DJT: This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove!
DJT: This Wikileaks is unbelievable.
DJT: I love reading those WikiLeaks.
DJT: The wonder of Wikileaks. We’ve learned so much from WikiLeaks.
But after a few years in power, his attitude? A little bit different.
Reporter: Do you still love WikiLeaks?
DJT: I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It’s not my thing.
DJT: WikiLeaks is a hoax, just like everything else.
DJT: WikiLeaks, etc. That’s not my deal in life. You know, in other words, I don’t know about Wikileaks, it was a strange name.
RG: Supporters of the prosecution of Assange make a number of arguments: That Assange is not a “real” journalist. He’s a hacker. He’s a traitor. He recklessly endangered lives and so he deserves no protection as a journalist. All of this is wrong.
The First Amendment isn’t worth the parchment it’s written on if it’s not respected, and defended, in the broader culture of the United States. People have to support it. Once that support erodes, it tends not to come back. That’s why authoritarians, when they want to curtail a particular freedom, usually find the most unsympathetic target they can, hoping nobody will come to his defense. Then once a new precedent is established, all bets are off. With Assange, Trump and Barr think they’ve found just such a man. It’s up to us not to take the bait.
[Musical interlude.]
RG: In a moment we’re going to talk to Dana Gottesfeld, whose husband, Marty Gottesfeld, a hacker, activist, and writer, is being held incommunicado in an Indiana prison that may soon play host to Assange. But first I want to speak with the journalist Kevin Gosztola of the outlet Shadow Proof, who has covered the hearing since it opened four weeks ago. Kevin, welcome to Deconstructed.
Kevin Gosztola: Yeah, thanks for having me.
RG: So Kevin, can you start out with a quick rundown of what a hearing like this looks like in a pandemic, what it’s like to cover it?
KG: Yeah, this has been a tremendously difficult hearing, cumbersome for the court to put on. This is being done — or, this was done, I believe by the time people listen to this interview, we will have concluded the witness testimony in its entirety, and the defense will then be preparing their closing arguments for the judge, for Vanessa Baraitser to review and ultimately decide whether to approve the extradition of Julian Assange.
But this Old Bailey criminal courthouse, a very old building, a fixture in London, a Dickensian kind of courthouse as it has been described to me, is one that had to be able to manage essentially bringing on dozens of witnesses for the defense who could testify using a video platform, and then simultaneously be able to bring in press who could follow video links, and, because of the pandemic, social distance within this courthouse.
RG: I want to start with the testimony of Trevor Tim, who actually writes for The Intercept on occasion, and you covered his appearance before the court. That’s when the real debate kind of over, you know, the nature of journalism began. What was the argument that Tim presented to the court?
KG: Trevor Tim took the stand and, importantly, he described how there’s over 70 media outlets that have adopted the SecureDrop system, this submission system in which you can receive leaks anonymously, and hopefully protect the identity of people who are providing documents, and that there are well established media outlets that are using this now, like The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today. And that there are organizations like the International Consortium for Investigative Journalists that would post on their website “leak to us,” that they would advertise. So they are soliciting leaks, they are asking people to give them information and it doesn’t say, you know, it doesn’t have a disclaimer — do not provide classified information to us. It’s acceptable to provide all information to these outlets, they will investigate and try to verify those documents.
And so the point being that WikiLeaks truly was a pioneer of this method of saying that we were going to accept documents from sources anonymously, and we will work to authenticate and verify those documents, and then we will publish them.
I think the key thing about Trevor Tim’s testimony is destigmatizing the work of WikiLeaks, or even demystifying it. Because what you have through the U.S. government’s targeting of Wikileaks over the past decade is a concerted effort to make it seem like what WikiLeaks does is not journalism. And so the counter to that through the defense’s case is to make it abundantly clear that this is not reasonable; that in fact, everything that WikiLeaks does, from when it accepts the documents, when it tries to authenticate them, to when it makes media partnerships, to also make sure that names are redacted, to make sure that sensitive details are understood fully before the documents are published. And I think you see that this is the way to keep investigative journalism robust in the 21st century.
RG: I thought Trevor’s point was interesting that The New York Times does not get a press badge from the U.S. government. You know, it isn’t, and it shouldn’t be, up to the U.S. government to decide who is and who is not a journalist.
And the idea of who is or is not a responsible journalist is different from what is illegal or legal conduct, which I also thought was important because the prosecution wants to say: Well, he’s an irresponsible person, so therefore, he doesn’t have these protections. And the counter is no, it’s not up to the government to say what’s responsible or irresponsible journalism. You know, the government creates laws, and if the laws are violated, then you can start your prosecution. But if not, you can’t. And it’s never been against the law to publish classified information. It’s against the law to leak it, if you have access to it. But it’s not against the law to publish it.
That’s why I thought it was also really compelling that Daniel Ellsberg testified. You know, Ellsberg has been really put on a pedestal over the last 10 or 20 years as the kind of whistleblower who did it right. And there’s a real effort among people to separate Ellsberg from people even like Edward Snowden, or from Assange to say that these are people who behave responsibly in trying to inform the public, and then these are people who behave irresponsibly and so, therefore, they’re criminals. Now Edward Snowden is a source, Assange is a publisher, but what did Ellsberg tell the court and why was his testimony relevant?
KG: In my view, Ellsberg testimony was significant because he unraveled or he undermined the kind of dichotomy that is usually perpetuated by the mass media in the sense that he’s talked about as the good leaker, and then, even though Julian Assange isn’t technically a leaker, he would be referred to as the bad leaker.
But Ellsberg made it very clear that he was no different from Assange in what he decided to disclose to the press, or what he decided to disclose to the public, for that matter. Because out of the 4000 pages, it contained thousands of names of Americans, Vietnamese, and North Vietnamese. And he even spoke in detail about a clandestine CIA officer whose name was revealed. And the reason why he didn’t hold back any names, he told the prosecutor was because he didn’t want anybody to think as they looked through the redactions in the papers, that perhaps hiding behind these black bars was a good justification for being at war in Vietnam. He wanted to make sure that no U.S. official could lie and deceive the public into believing that Ellsberg was hiding a reasonable case for remaining in Vietnam.
RG: There was an interesting exchange between Ellsberg and the prosecutor where Ellsberg was trying to lay out that there’s no evidence whatsoever that anybody has actually been harmed as a result of the WikiLeaks releases. And the judge was stopping him from saying that, which actually brought an intervention from Assange, himself, who you say is kind of in a plexiglass cage in the corner. So how did Assange respond to that, and can he be heard? Or can you only just tell that he’s agitating?
KG: Yeah. So over video, it’s difficult to understand and hear him, though I can make out some words, during the course of these proceedings.
Most of the reporting on Assange is interruptions — I don’t really call them disruptions, because I think it’s fairly frustrating. We need to be sensitive to what has gone on with his due process rights over the course of the extradition case. I believe Americans can appreciate how unusual it is to be separated from your attorneys and not be able to quickly consult with your legal team.
Normally, a defendant like Assange, if he was just in the United States, would be able to lean over and talk to his attorney. And very quickly, that attorney would be able to ask the question that needs to be put to Daniel Ellsberg. And in fact, he can’t do that without shouting from the back of the courtroom from this glass box, that, by the way, I know back in February of this year, the judge refused to allow him to leave so that he could join his legal team, even though the prosecution said that they were neutral and did not care if Julian Assange was permitted to sit with his attorneys during proceedings. As a way of enforcing her authority over Julian Assange and this extradition case, she’s kept him in the dock, or as we call it, the glass box.
RG: Right.
KG: And so essentially, if I’m recalling this correctly, I believe that Assange was just insistent that nobody had been put at risk by these disclosures. And, you know, some of these proceedings, he’s also just been frustrated at the way the prosecutors treat the witnesses, believing that the prosecutor isn’t letting witnesses speak. That’s an important thing as well.
But but just close the loop here with Ellsberg, you know, he made the correct argument, which is to say that, when you go back to Chelsea Manning’s trial, there was a witness — I forget exactly what his title was — but I know his last name was Carr. And he took the stand and made a claim in the middle of the courtroom — I remember this because I was there covering it at Fort Meade — he made the claim that someone in the Taliban had executed someone who was named in a WikiLeaks document. And then the defense objected, and there was back and forth, and then finally, it was determined, and they conceded, that the Taliban had just lied, they had said it was but that person was never named in the WikiLeaks document. And so the judge had to force this witness for the prosecution to recant.
And this came on sentencing, when Chelsea Manning was there in sentencing. And so Ellsberg is going back and forth, and, as he says — and I think this is a great context for it — you know, this small fraction of people who the government is claiming to be murdered on both sides of this conflict, what they’re trying to say is that there were, some people, maybe a few people, who ultimately might have been killed by the disclosures of these WikiLeaks documents. But we can’t lose perspective in talking about the carnage that has gone on. And in that respect, I can say, the Iraq War Logs revealed that 15,000 more people — 15,000 more civilians — were killed in that war zone than were previously known before those disclosures.
And so Ellsberg was trying to place it into the context of war that has gone on throughout the region for the last 20 years. He even spoke to the displacement of the 37 million people that has unfolded in the region, and saying he didn’t actually believe that these government agencies truly care at all about these Middle Easterners, or the people in Afghanistan.
Because, in fact, and this is an important point, Julian Assange asked for help from the State Department and the Pentagon on the redactions. And they would not provide any assistance in removing the names or giving him any information that would help him understand whether someone would be put at risk. And we’ve had this corroborated by journalists who are working on the material. So I’m not just trying to say this to be a booster of Assange. We’ve heard evidence in this case of WikiLeaks actually trying to do good diligence with the material. And yet because they don’t want Wikileaks to be treated as a journalist organization or a media organization, they would not do business basically.
What’s interesting is a lot of this hinges not on press freedom, but actually on human rights, because the United States takes a much more liberal view, so to speak, of what the state and what the prison system is allowed to do to the people who are in its charge. The rest of the kind of industrialized world does not treat prisoners the way that we do. And so the the Assange defense is saying that if you extradite Assange to the United States he will be locked in a hole, he’ll spend his life in isolation in a supermax, and eventually, probably in Colorado, where he will suffer the most kind of depraved state action that you can contemplate, short of ripping somebody’s toenails out.
RG: And so what was the argument that was being made by the defense around the prison conditions in the United States?
KG: First off, we hear the argument that was made through an attorney named Lindsay Lewis in the past week, who represented Mustafa Kamel Mustafa, who is I think more commonly known to people as Abu Hamza, and he was accused of terrorism offenses. And he had a high-profile extradition case in the UK. And in fact, she’s representing him when it comes to the very issues that Julian Assange could have, if he is brought to the U.S., put on trial, and sentenced to or placed under special administrative measures in Florence, Colorado at ADX Florence, this supermax prison.
And so she knows what Julian Assange will have to deal with. And she says that there were representations, and reference these representations that the warden who was there at the time made to these British courts about how someone who was in ill health, like Abu Hamza, even though he was accused of very serious terrorist offenses, even though there might have been evidence for him being involved in some terrible acts, he, himself had ill health and he has physical disabilities. And so he was unlikely to be at the supermax prison for more than a short period of time. And because he wouldn’t be there for a lengthy indefinite period, it was not deemed by any of the courts that reviewed the case and also heard his appeals — and this includes the European Court of Human Rights — it was deemed that there was no reason to have any concern about him. He could be allowed to be brought to the U.S., because they would do a medical evaluation if he was in the supermax prison, and then they would probably determine that he should go to a medical center and not be held in solitary confinement at the supermax facility.
None of that played out. All the assurances that were made to the courts turned out not to be true. And he is still there. After his conviction in 2014, he has been in supermax under special administrative measures, which is a way of restricting your communication with the outside world, and he’s been there for five years. And this is indefinite. And he’s challenging his detention.
And so this was put forward as a clear example of what Julian Assange could expect. And I think it’s really fair to draw this comparison, because I’ve been a bit baffled in following this, because every time there’s a witness who speaks on the prison issues, and how he would be sentenced, we’ve had multiple attorneys from the United States, and we also have people with backgrounds in following prison issues, or we even had a former Warden named Maureen Baird, who testified during the fourth week. And when they talked about how Julian Assange would be designated a national security defendant, and the U.S. government, its intelligence agencies, that make determinations about authorizing SAMs, because SAMs have to be authorized by the attorney general, when they talk about why they would want to designate him for Sams during pre trial and also for post trial, the prosecutors have denied that they would treat them like this because they’re afraid he would further disclose classified information. They have denied that they would view him as a national security threat, who would not be permitted to speak to other prisoners, because they would be afraid that he would spread sensitive information that they do not want circulating.
This was a factor in Chelsea Manning’s case. This is partially why she was held at Quantico Marine Brig in conditions of solitary confinement for a period of time, because while they said it was protective custody, there was also evidence, if you read between the lines, that made it very clear that they did not want her talking to other people who were held at the brig at Quantico about the information that she had disclosed to WikiLeaks, because it was classified information.
And so I think that they’re being deceitful. And I don’t know if the judge can tell that they’re being deceitful, but we have this clear example. And what they’ve been trying to show is that, you know, Julian Assange is likely to receive a lengthy sentence, because of how the charges could be stacked, because of how you could add enhancements to the charges, to the offenses, and that he’s likely to receive a 20- to 30-year sentence. He’s a 50-year-old man, he’s 49 years old right now, but by the time he’s on trial, let’s say it’s going to be one to two, or maybe three years from now, he would be in his 50s. If he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years, that’s essentially a life sentence.
And wherever he goes, what we’re hearing is clear evidence that before the trial at the Alexandria Detention Center, he would be put in conditions of solitary confinement. He’s a high-profile defendant, so he would be treated like Paul Manafort and Maria Butina were treated. And then if he’s convicted, he would be brought to a facility like ADX Florence, or I think that there’s evidence that is persuasive that he could be brought to a communications management unit in Terre Haute, Indiana or in Marion, Illinois.
And I’ll say in concluding that one of the rare questions that was asked of a witness by the judge, the judge doesn’t ask witnesses many questions. One question she did have was why there’s a difference between the UK and the U.S. in how we treat high-profile defendants. Because in the UK, Julian Assange has not been punished for the fact that there is a lot of publicity toward his case. However, in the U.S., it’s different. We know from whistleblower cases that people get punished. Anyone in prisons, or anyone in jail before trial, who has the ability to access media and defend themselves in the court of public opinion, is typically retaliated against by wardens and management of those facilities. And so she asked, What’s the difference?
And he said: You know, I don’t really know what the difference is. This is Yancey Ellis, he’s a public defender, now an attorney who works in the Eastern District of Virginia representing people in the Alexandria, Virginia area who have gone through that court system and who have been detained and held at the Alexandria Detention Center. And he said: I don’t really know why there’s a difference. I can just tell you that those types of defendants are treated in this manner, that they are kept in isolation, and treated that way by the detention center.
RG: We’re gonna keep watching this. And Kevin Gosztola, thank you so much for your coverage of this important hearing. And thank you for joining us here on Deconstructed.
KG: Thank you.
[Musical interlude.]
RG: That was Kevin Gosztola of the outlet Shadow Proof. The issues he just described to us are not theoretical, and they’re not unique to Julian Assange. Retaliation against high-profile prisoners, and anybody who attempts to talk to the press is real.
We’re joined next by somebody who knows that all too well. Dana Gottesfeld has been battling for years to bring attention to the case of her husband, Martin Gottesfeld, who’s serving a sentence in a federal prison in Terre Haute Indiana, in a so-called communications management unit, or CMU, where his access to visitors and other inmates is severely restricted.
Dana thanks for joining us on Deconstructed.
Dana Gottesfeld: Hi Ryan. Thank you.
RG: So Dana, I know you haven’t been in communication with Marty for a few months now. But what was the latest that you’ve heard from him about what life is like in that CMU?
DG: It never ceases to disturb me. I’ve definitely had a much different understanding of the criminal justice system now that I’ve seen it up close. Some of the things that they do, they are just so unconstitutional. And there’s so little accountability. It certainly doesn’t feel like any America that I would recognize. It’s upsetting.
But some of the things they do there are they block mail between clients and attorneys. Marty’s had mail that went out to his attorney that got stopped at the sorting facility in Vermont where his attorney is, and it never has left the facility. They read mail between attorneys and clients and between clients and the courts. It’s a very dystopian place. They won’t give out a list of written rules of what you can and can’t do, but then they’ll punish people afterwards and say, “That wasn’t allowed.” And these are all things that have happened to Marty.
RG: What’s a typical day like for Marty?
DG: Well, anytime there’s a COVID case, the entire facility gets locked down. So that’s, I think, 23 hours-a-day lockdown. I think there’s a usual amount of lockdown throughout the day anyways, but I imagine it’s not so good. I think he just sits in his cell and writes. Yeah.
RG: Has he had a cellmate the entire time or has he spent time in isolation as well?
RG: And I don’t think he has a cellmate and he has spent time in the SHU which is the special housing unit or solitary there. It’s probably one of the worst SHUs I’ve heard of. And Marty’s been in probably more than six facilities in the U.S..
RG: What is it about the Indiana prison, their solitary, that makes it so much worse in your mind?
DG: Well, there’s a huge rodent and cockroach infestation. There’s no desk to do any writing, so he has to bend over and do it over bed. They had a SWAT team go into his cell multiple times a day. He’s not leaving the cell, so it’s not like anything is changing, it’s just to, I don’t know, throw him off, upset him.
They have him chained and shackled. He was on a hunger strike in the CMU and he would drink water, but they would make it too difficult for him to actually get the water because of his chains.
They’re just so callous. And it’s not like it’s based in security for the facility or anything like that. It’s just retaliation.
RG: Marty is an awfully strong person. Have you been able to sense what it’s done to him mental-health wise?
DG: Well, I haven’t spoken to him since August 31. But I can imagine he’s probably pretty stressed and anxious. And I would like to see some kind of accountability.
RG: And where do you find that accountability? That’s what makes places like this so remarkable. Outside of the press, which he’s effectively barred from communicating with, what can a family do, or what could an inmate do, to try to remedy the unconstitutional conditions they’re living in?
DG: In my opinion, that’s one of the worst parts is how the prison has complete control over what a prisoner can do. Basically, they disabled the hotlines, so there’s no way to report violations anonymously. They intercept — [laughs] that’s funny — complaints to the Office of the Inspector General. The prison intercepts mail between him and the courts. They block mail to journalists. It’s like they’re running some kind of show where they can do bad things, and then make sure no one can hear about it.
And then if you actually are successful, if you can get it to the OIG or the Regional Director of the Bureau of Prisons, they don’t do anything. There’s people that should be removed from their position, or at least be held accountable to follow rules. One of the big things we’re seeing is made-up disciplinary actions. Like these are fraudulent, they’re fake on their head, just immediately looking at them. These are things that didn’t happen — he has written proof. And it’s so hard to get anything with that. It’s like the truth doesn’t matter. It’s like living in an alternate reality — or maybe it’s like living in a 2020 reality at this point.
RG: Right, right. Yeah, it certainly sounds that way.
DG: I think that the CMU and the prisons in the U.S. are especially bad for journalists. It’s extremely hard to get writing done and prison staff are extra retaliatory towards people like that. I think if Assange comes to the U.S., he can expect at least as bad as Marty, and it’s extremely frightening.
RG: Well, well, Dana, thank you for taking some time and joining us here on Deconstructed. Please do send our best to Marty, if and when you hear from him next.
DG: Thanks Ryan.
[Musical interlude.]
RG: That was Dana Gottesfeld, and that’s our show.
Deconstructed is a production of First Look Media and The Intercept. Our producer is Zach Young. The show was mixed by Bryan Pugh. Our theme music was composed by Bart Warshaw. Betsy Reed is The Intercept’s editor in chief.
And I’m Ryan Grim, D.C. Bureau Chief for the Intercept. If you haven’t already, please subscribe to the show so you can hear it every week. Go to theintercept.com/deconstructed to subscribe from your podcast platform of choice: iPhone, Android, whatever. If you’re subscribed already, please do leave us a rating or review — it helps people find the show. And if you want to give us feedback, email us at Podcasts@theintercept.com. Thanks so much!
See you next week.


theintercept--2020-10-02--Pauline Binam Says She Never Gave ICE Doctor Consent to Remove Her Fallopian Tube

Pauline Binam , a Cameroonian American woman held in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla , Georgia , was approached by a friend of hers , who told her a horrifying story .
The young woman from Mexico had undergone surgery to remove cysts in her ovaries and , when she woke up from the procedure , the doctor had told her she could no longer have children .
Binam , who came to the U.S. when she was three , had picked up some Spanish in detention , so she helped her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ She told me it hurt so much she had scar tissue now , and she will not be able to have kids , ” Binam told The Intercept .
The woman was deported about a week after she and Binam submitted the letter .
A year later , Binam set aside her own nerves about seeking medical care while in detention and asked ICE to arrange an annual Pap smear .
The OB-GYN who examined her in a general hospital outside the detention facility , Dr. Mahendra Amin , informed her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a medical problem she ’ d never had before .
“ It got more serious than I thought because I ’ ve never had those issues in the outside world , ” Binam said .
Amin then scheduled her to have a D & C , or dilation and curettage procedure , which he said would remove the cysts by scraping them from her fallopian tube .
Binam went along with it because Amin employed a “ calm and nurturing ” demeanor , she said .
On August 23 , 2019 , Binam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woke up , she was brought to the recovery room by two ICE officers .
She asked Amin if everything went OK. “ He said , ‘ Yes , I was able to remove the blocking in your fallopian tubes .
Your right one was worse , so I cut it out .
You will not be able to have kids naturally anymore , only through IVF , ’ ” Binam recalled , referring to in vitro fertilization , an assisted reproductive technology .
“ I was taken back and I had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
“ Then he said it again , and I just busted out crying.
” Binam , who is 30 , is adding her voice to the accounts of other women detained at Irwin who have come forward about gynecological procedures carried out by Amin without their fully informed consent .
Concerns about high rates of hysterectomies at the facility came to light earlier this month in a whistleblower complaint filed by a nurse at Irwin , Dawn Wooten , and the advocacy groups Project South and Government Accountability Project .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital where the doctor works have since said their data shows only two full hysterectomies were performed since 2018 .
But Binam and other women have described other invasive gynecological procedures that may have not been necessary .
( The Intercept was unable to independently verify Binam ’ s account of helping a friend file an official complaint . )
The women ’ s stories underscore the fact that immigrants in ICE custody are vulnerable to medical abuse of all kinds : care is substandard , they often don ’ t have interpreters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of power between the women and the government-contracted doctors they see .
The New York Times recently reported that it spoke with 16 women treated by Amin “ who were concerned about the level of gynecological care they received.
” Rep. Pramila Jayapal , D-Wash. , said after a visit to Irwin last weekend that she ’ d spoken with eight women about medical procedures performed “ without consent or knowledge.
” ( In previous statements to The Intercept and other outlets , Amin has insisted that he did not perform unnecessary procedures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their consent .
Scott Grubman , a lawyer representing Amin , said that “ federal HIPAA regulations ” — privacy rules — “ prohibit Dr. Amin from commenting on any care that he may or may not have provided to a patient.
” ) Binam described a process similar to other accounts of Amin ’ s surgeries : He first emphasized the severity of the cysts in her ovaries , then prescribed a harsh treatment .
( Gynecologists who reviewed records for the Times concluded that Amin “ consistently overstated the size or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his patients ’ reproductive organs.
” ) Binam consented to the treatment for the cysts , but , while she was unconscious , Amin operated on her fallopian tube and later claimed it was a necessary part of the procedure .
She did not give her consent for removing the fallopian tube , because she didn ’ t know it was happening .
In retrospect , based on what she ’ s since learned , Binam believes that even the D & C didn ’ t need to happen in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are in a ball like that are eventually going to burst on their own , ” Binam explained .
“ So a D & C was already extreme to perform on a cyst that was ready to evaporate on its own.
” Irwin is run by LaSalle Corrections , a private prison contractor whose facilities have regularly been criticized for inadequate medical care and ignoring detainee complaints .
At the same time , Binam said that people inside were actually encouraged to try to get routine health care , because it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there and they tell you , ‘ Hey , while you ’ re in ICE custody , you ’ re insured , get all the medical attention you need while you ’ re here.
’ And so , people are excited because on the outside it ’ s costly , and some people haven ’ t seen an OB-GYN for years , ” she said .
Two other Cameroonian women who had been held at Irwin told The Intercept they had had surgeries last year but weren ’ t sure what had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Josephine , who asked to be identified by only her first name because she is still in detention , said the surgery was “ really traumatizing , I can ’ t remember anything.
” A third Cameroonian woman , who asked to remain anonymous , told The Intercept that a doctor performed a surgery on her in September 2019 but that she couldn ’ t remember what the surgery was .
“ I don ’ t know if I ’ m sterilized , I don ’ t know what is in my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s since been transferred to a detention center in Montgomery , Texas , where she has sought medical attention 10 times for severe “ pain above my private parts.
” The medical staff at Montgomery have only prescribed her Tylenol and ibuprofen , she said .
Amin was sued by the Justice Department , along with other doctors , in 2013 , for making false Medicare and Medicaid claims to the government for unnecessary procedures for patients .
whistleblower complaint made headlines last month , Binam was about to be deported .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ media , making her one of the faces of the controversy at Irwin , and some advocates suggested that the deportation proceedings had been sped up to keep her from speaking out .
In the end , the deportation attempt ran into a separate ICE scandal : The paperwork being used to send Binam and Josephine back to Cameroon turned out to be highly problematic .
On September 16 , ICE officers took the women by charter plane from Texas to Chicago ’ s O ’ Hare International Airport and escorted them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the women insisted on seeing their travel documents , ICE produced two temporary one-way passports known as “ laissez-passers , ” issued by the “ Honorary Consul ” of Cameroon in Houston , Texas , Charles Greene III , the women said .
Binam recognized Greene ’ s name from a Families for Freedom report about him issuing false documents to facilitate deportations .
An American citizen and Methodist minister , Greene received the honorary consular position in 1986 due to his ties to Shell Oil , according to Al Jazeera .
Cameroonian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued documents in the past but that no one had heard of him for the past five years .
In 2013 , at the request of ICE , Greene issued a Cameroonian laissez-passer to a national of Ivory Coast .
The document was challenged in court , but even though the judge wrote in her ruling that “ this Court is unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the travel document is valid , ” the man was nonetheless deported .
Seeing his name , Binam and Josephine sat down in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say Ethiopian Airlines also refused to board them .
ICE backed down and returned the women to Texas .
When asked if documents issued by Charles Greene are valid , a representative of the Cameroon Embassy in Washington , D.C. , said , “ No.
” The representative said , “ There ’ s only one embassy , it ’ s in Washington .
There ’ s no Charles Greene , there ’ s no embassy in Texas.
” ICE spokesperson Tim Oberle said that both Binam and Josephine ’ s travel documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cameroonian Embassy in Washington , D.C. , not the Cameroonian Consulate in Houston , Texas.
” Oberle claimed to not know of Greene , even though the agency has sought documents from him in the past .
“ I ’ ve never talked to him .
I ’ ve never seen anything .
I don ’ t even know if he exists , ” Oberle said .
Binam ’ s lawyer , Van Hunyh , said that a representative of the Cameroonian embassy in Washington , D.C. , told her that the embassy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee , D-Texas , as well as immigration advocates like the Cameroon American Council , appealed to ICE on Binam ’ s behalf .
A couple of days after the deportation was halted , she was released from detention on humanitarian grounds .
After three years in custody , Binam reunited with her parents and her 12-year-old daughter in Maryland , but must still check in with ICE on a regular basis .
She is now looking to visit an OB-GYN to see if what Amin told her about not @ @ @ @ @

In 2018, Pauline Binam, a Cameroonian American woman held in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla, Georgia, was approached by a friend of hers, who told her a horrifying story. The young woman from Mexico had undergone surgery to remove cysts in her ovaries and, when she woke up from the procedure, the doctor had told her she could no longer have children.
Binam, who came to the U.S. when she was three, had picked up some Spanish in detention, so she helped her friend write an official complaint to ICE. “She told me it hurt so much she had scar tissue now, and she will not be able to have kids,” Binam told The Intercept. The woman was deported about a week after she and Binam submitted the letter.
A year later, Binam set aside her own nerves about seeking medical care while in detention and asked ICE to arrange an annual Pap smear. The OB-GYN who examined her in a general hospital outside the detention facility, Dr. Mahendra Amin, informed her she had cysts on her ovaries, a medical problem she’d never had before. “It got more serious than I thought because I’ve never had those issues in the outside world,” Binam said.
“I was taken back and I had to ask him to repeat himself. Then he said it again, and I just busted out crying.”
Amin then scheduled her to have a D&C, or dilation and curettage procedure, which he said would remove the cysts by scraping them from her fallopian tube. Binam went along with it because Amin employed a “calm and nurturing” demeanor, she said.
On August 23, 2019, Binam went under anesthesia and, when she woke up, she was brought to the recovery room by two ICE officers. She asked Amin if everything went OK. “He said, ‘Yes, I was able to remove the blocking in your fallopian tubes. Your right one was worse, so I cut it out. You will not be able to have kids naturally anymore, only through IVF,’” Binam recalled, referring to in vitro fertilization, an assisted reproductive technology.
“I was taken back and I had to ask him to repeat himself,” she said. “Then he said it again, and I just busted out crying.”
Photo: Courtesy of Pauline Binam
Binam, who is 30, is adding her voice to the accounts of other women detained at Irwin who have come forward about gynecological procedures carried out by Amin without their fully informed consent. Concerns about high rates of hysterectomies at the facility came to light earlier this month in a whistleblower complaint filed by a nurse at Irwin, Dawn Wooten, and the advocacy groups Project South and Government Accountability Project.
ICE, Amin, and the county hospital where the doctor works have since said their data shows only two full hysterectomies were performed since 2018. But Binam and other women have described other invasive gynecological procedures that may have not been necessary. (The Intercept was unable to independently verify Binam’s account of helping a friend file an official complaint.)
The women’s stories underscore the fact that immigrants in ICE custody are vulnerable to medical abuse of all kinds: care is substandard, they often don’t have interpreters, and there is an inherent imbalance of power between the women and the government-contracted doctors they see.
The New York Times recently reported that it spoke with 16 women treated by Amin “who were concerned about the level of gynecological care they received.” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said after a visit to Irwin last weekend that she’d spoken with eight women about medical procedures performed “without consent or knowledge.” (In previous statements to The Intercept and other outlets, Amin has insisted that he did not perform unnecessary procedures on women at Irwin or operate without their consent. Scott Grubman, a lawyer representing Amin, said that “federal HIPAA regulations” — privacy rules — “prohibit Dr. Amin from commenting on any care that he may or may not have provided to a patient.”)
Binam described a process similar to other accounts of Amin’s surgeries: He first emphasized the severity of the cysts in her ovaries, then prescribed a harsh treatment. (Gynecologists who reviewed records for the Times concluded that Amin “consistently overstated the size or risks associated with cysts or masses attached to his patients’ reproductive organs.”)
Binam consented to the treatment for the cysts, but, while she was unconscious, Amin operated on her fallopian tube and later claimed it was a necessary part of the procedure. She did not give her consent for removing the fallopian tube, because she didn’t know it was happening. In retrospect, based on what she’s since learned, Binam believes that even the D&C didn’t need to happen in the first place. “There are water-like cysts that are in a ball like that are eventually going to burst on their own,” Binam explained. “So a D&C was already extreme to perform on a cyst that was ready to evaporate on its own.”
Irwin is run by LaSalle Corrections, a private prison contractor whose facilities have regularly been criticized for inadequate medical care and ignoring detainee complaints. At the same time, Binam said that people inside were actually encouraged to try to get routine health care, because it was free. “You’re in there and they tell you, ‘Hey, while you’re in ICE custody, you’re insured, get all the medical attention you need while you’re here.’ And so, people are excited because on the outside it’s costly, and some people haven’t seen an OB-GYN for years,” she said.
Two other Cameroonian women who had been held at Irwin told The Intercept they had had surgeries last year but weren’t sure what had been done, or who had performed them. Josephine, who asked to be identified by only her first name because she is still in detention, said the surgery was “really traumatizing, I can’t remember anything.”
A third Cameroonian woman, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Intercept that a doctor performed a surgery on her in September 2019 but that she couldn’t remember what the surgery was. “I don’t know if I’m sterilized, I don’t know what is in my system,” she said. She’s since been transferred to a detention center in Montgomery, Texas, where she has sought medical attention 10 times for severe “pain above my private parts.” The medical staff at Montgomery have only prescribed her Tylenol and ibuprofen, she said.
Amin was sued by the Justice Department, along with other doctors, in 2013, for making false Medicare and Medicaid claims to the government for unnecessary procedures for patients.
When Wooten’s whistleblower complaint made headlines last month, Binam was about to be deported. Her attorneys blasted her case on social media, making her one of the faces of the controversy at Irwin, and some advocates suggested that the deportation proceedings had been sped up to keep her from speaking out.
In the end, the deportation attempt ran into a separate ICE scandal: The paperwork being used to send Binam and Josephine back to Cameroon turned out to be highly problematic.
On September 16, ICE officers took the women by charter plane from Texas to Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport and escorted them to a commercial Ethiopian Airlines flight. When the women insisted on seeing their travel documents, ICE produced two temporary one-way passports known as “laissez-passers,” issued by the “Honorary Consul” of Cameroon in Houston, Texas, Charles Greene III, the women said. Binam recognized Greene’s name from a Families for Freedom report about him issuing false documents to facilitate deportations.
An American citizen and Methodist minister, Greene received the honorary consular position in 1986 due to his ties to Shell Oil, according to Al Jazeera. Cameroonian Americans in Houston said Greene had occasionally issued documents in the past but that no one had heard of him for the past five years. In 2013, at the request of ICE, Greene issued a Cameroonian laissez-passer to a national of Ivory Coast. The document was challenged in court, but even though the judge wrote in her ruling that “this Court is unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the travel document is valid,” the man was nonetheless deported.
Seeing his name, Binam and Josephine sat down in the departures hall in protest. Both women say Ethiopian Airlines also refused to board them. ICE backed down and returned the women to Texas.
When asked if documents issued by Charles Greene are valid, a representative of the Cameroon Embassy in Washington, D.C., said, “No.” The representative said, “There’s only one embassy, it’s in Washington. There’s no Charles Greene, there’s no embassy in Texas.”
ICE spokesperson Tim Oberle said that both Binam and Josephine’s travel documents “were issued to ICE by the Cameroonian Embassy in Washington, D.C., not the Cameroonian Consulate in Houston, Texas.” Oberle claimed to not know of Greene, even though the agency has sought documents from him in the past. “I’ve never talked to him. I’ve never seen anything. I don’t even know if he exists,” Oberle said. Binam’s lawyer, Van Hunyh, said that a representative of the Cameroonian embassy in Washington, D.C., told her that the embassy never issued any documents for Binam.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, as well as immigration advocates like the Cameroon American Council, appealed to ICE on Binam’s behalf. A couple of days after the deportation was halted, she was released from detention on humanitarian grounds.
After three years in custody, Binam reunited with her parents and her 12-year-old daughter in Maryland, but must still check in with ICE on a regular basis.
She is now looking to visit an OB-GYN to see if what Amin told her about not having children is true.
Linda F. Bonglack Nyanganji contributed research to this article.


theintercept--2020-10-02--Trump Is Hospitalized With Covid-19, Days After Mocking Biden for Wearing a Mask

of refusing to follow his own government ’ s public health advice to wear a mask during the coronavirus pandemic , and just two days after mocking his opponent Joe Biden for routinely doing so , President Donald Trump tested positive for Covid-19 on Thursday , contracting the illness spread by respiratory droplets .
On Friday afternoon , the White House physician disclosed that Trump had a fever and a cough and had been given an experimental Covid-19 treatment , a cocktail of two monoclonal antibodies that has not yet been approved by the F.D.A .
A short time later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kayleigh McEnany , said that the president would be “ working from ” Walter Reed Military Medical Center “ for the next few days.
” Fox News , the president ’ s de facto campaign arm , had snapped into action by illustrating initial reports on the breaking news with one of the rare images of Trump wearing a mask — taken during a carefully staged photo-op at Walter Reed hospital in July .
While Trump ’ s aides had urged him to wear a mask in public that day to set an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ careful to undermine the guidance from health experts first , by suggesting that masks were appropriate only at times , like , “ when you ’ re in a hospital.
” When he emerged from the White House on Friday for a more urgent trip to the hospital for treatment , the president was wearing the same cloth mask he had worn briefly that day in July , and waved dismissively as a debate prop on Tuesday .
Given that he now has the virus , it seemed irresponsible of him not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would do more to protect those around him from getting the virus .
Before he left the White House for the hospital , the president recorded a video message thanking well-wishers , while not wearing a mask of any kind .
Before and after that July photo-op , the president has been a central figure in the politicization of mask-wearing — sowing resistance among his supporters by flouting the guidance himself and repeatedly making fun of others who follow it , particularly Biden , the Democratic nominee to replace him as president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rival covered his face not to protect others or himself from the pandemic viral illness but “ because , you know what , it gives him a feeling of security .
If I were a psychiatrist , I ’ d say : ‘ This guy ’ s got some big issues . '
” During the presidential debate on Tuesday , Trump again insinuated that there was something odd about the former vice president wearing a mask , a measure recommended by his coronavirus task force in April .
“ I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump said , gesturing toward Biden .
“ Every time you see him , he ’ s got a mask .
He could be speaking 200 feet away from him and he shows up with the biggest mask I ’ ve ever seen.
” Biden responded by noting that the director of the Centers for Disease Control , Dr. Robert Redfield , just told Congress that nationwide mask-wearing could bring the pandemic under control in 6-12 weeks , potentially saving tens of thousands of lives .
When Trump interrupted with the false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the opposite , ” about the effectiveness of masks , Biden replied dismissively , “ No serious person ’ s said the opposite.
” Moments later , Trump also made fun of Biden for observing social distancing at small-scale campaign events during the pandemic , and denied that the crowded rallies he has held recently to make himself feel loved have threatened public health .
“ So far we have had no problem whatsoever , ” the president claimed , relying on voters to have forgotten , or never heard , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 nine days after sitting unmasked at Trump ’ s indoor rally in Tulsa in June , and died weeks later .
Biden then pointed out that Trump had said recently that his rallies were safe , for him , because he maintained social distance from his supporters .
“ He ’ s not worried about the people out there , breathing on one another , cheek by jowl , ” Biden said .
“ We ’ ve had no negative effect , ” Trump interjected .
“ No negative effect ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s wife , Melania , and one of his closest aides , Hope Hicks , also tested positive for the viral disease on Thursday .
Both women have , at times , worn masks in public , but have also regularly been seen unmasked , including this week .
After news of Trump ’ s positive test was reported on Thursday , Ornstein observed that the debate had taken place with “ Trump shouting only 8-10 feet from Biden for 90 mins .
Oy.
” On Friday morning , the Bidens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of infection .
“ I ’ m happy to report that Jill and I have tested negative for COVID , ” the former vice president wrote on Twitter .
“ Thank you to everyone for your messages of concern .
I hope this serves as a reminder : wear a mask , keep social distance , and wash your hands.
” The Fox News anchor also explained that while he was tested by the Cleveland Clinic in advance of the debate , the president and his aides were allowed to screen themselves for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honor system , ” Wallace said on testing for the virus , “ when it came to the people that came into the hall from the two campaigns.
” Incredibly , after Hicks was diagnosed on Thursday , Trump still went to a fundraiser at his golf club in Bedminster , New Jersey .
“ Trump was in close contact with dozens of other people , including campaign supporters , at a roundtable event , ” The Washington Post reports .
“ The president did not wear a mask Thursday , including at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the plane , officials said .
He was tested after he returned to the White House.
” The president ’ s disdain for mask-wearing has been one of the few constants in his response to the pandemic that has now killed nearly 208,000 Americans .
In early April , when Trump himself announced that his coronavirus task force recommended mask-wearing to slow the spread of the virus , he immediately made it clear that he had no intention of doing so .
Asked why , Trump said that he was concerned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the pandemic would soon be over anyway .
“ This will pass , and hopefully it will pass very quickly , ” he told reporters .
Trump ’ s apparent worry was that the public might be alarmed , or perhaps tipped off to the true scale of the crisis he was intentionally downplaying , by seeing him in a mask .
His concern clearly influenced the behavior of his aides and senior administration officials .
In April , Vice President Mike Pence refused to wear a mask during a visit to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandatory .
Also in April , the White House reportedly stepped in to block plans by the United States Postal Service to deliver five face covering to every American household , 650 million masks in total .
A month later , when food industry executives in Iowa arrived for a roundtable discussion with Pence , a White House aide was spotted on camera asking them to remove the masks they were wearing before the vice president entered the room .
“ When I arrived at the White House , a medical professional took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nasal swab for a rapid COVID-19 test , ” Jenkins wrote in an email to Notre Dame ’ s faculty , staff and students on Monday .
“ I was then directed to a room with others , all fully masked , until we were notified that we had all tested negative and were told that it was safe to remove our masks .
We were then escorted to the Rose Garden , where I was seated with others who also had just been tested and received negative results.
” Ronna McDaniel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee , also tested positive for Covid-19 , as did Sen. Mike Lee , a Republican from Utah who just met with Barrett on Tuesday , an encounter during which neither of them wore a mask .

After six months of refusing to follow his own government’s public health advice to wear a mask during the coronavirus pandemic, and just two days after mocking his opponent Joe Biden for routinely doing so, President Donald Trump tested positive for Covid-19 on Thursday, contracting the illness spread by respiratory droplets.
On Friday afternoon, the White House physician disclosed that Trump had a fever and a cough and had been given an experimental Covid-19 treatment, a cocktail of two monoclonal antibodies that has not yet been approved by the F.D.A. A short time later, the White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, said that the president would be “working from” Walter Reed Military Medical Center “for the next few days.”
Fox News, the president’s de facto campaign arm, had snapped into action by illustrating initial reports on the breaking news with one of the rare images of Trump wearing a mask — taken during a carefully staged photo-op at Walter Reed hospital in July.
Fox News illustrates breaking news that Trump has tested positive for Covid with rare image of him briefly wearing a mask – moving quickly to airbrush from the minds of viewers his reckless refusal to do so routinely and his constant mockery of Biden for being more responsible. pic.twitter.com/2JdRpgBo4e — Robert Mackey (@RobertMackey) October 2, 2020
While Trump’s aides had urged him to wear a mask in public that day to set an example for his followers, he was careful to undermine the guidance from health experts first, by suggesting that masks were appropriate only at times, like, “when you’re in a hospital.”
When he emerged from the White House on Friday for a more urgent trip to the hospital for treatment, the president was wearing the same cloth mask he had worn briefly that day in July, and waved dismissively as a debate prop on Tuesday. Given that he now has the virus, it seemed irresponsible of him not to wear an N95 mask instead, which would do more to protect those around him from getting the virus.
Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Before he left the White House for the hospital, the president recorded a video message thanking well-wishers, while not wearing a mask of any kind.
Before and after that July photo-op, the president has been a central figure in the politicization of mask-wearing — sowing resistance among his supporters by flouting the guidance himself and repeatedly making fun of others who follow it, particularly Biden, the Democratic nominee to replace him as president.
North Carolina woman refuses to wear a mask & causes a huge scene saying "Trump 2020" pic.twitter.com/OiXok1jRoB — Fifty Shades of Whey (@davenewworld_2) July 10, 2020
After Biden wore a mask to a Memorial Day service, Trump shared a childish tweet from the Fox News commentator Brit Hume suggesting that the former vice president looked silly.
At a rally in Pennsylvania last month, Trump treated Biden’s mask-wearing as a weakness to be ridiculed. “Did you ever see a man who likes a mask as much as him?” the president asked in his insult-comic mode.
He went on to suggest that his rival covered his face not to protect others or himself from the pandemic viral illness but “because, you know what, it gives him a feeling of security. If I were a psychiatrist, I’d say: ‘This guy’s got some big issues.'”
During the presidential debate on Tuesday, Trump again insinuated that there was something odd about the former vice president wearing a mask, a measure recommended by his coronavirus task force in April.
Here's Trump — who just announced he and Melania are under quarantine for possible COVID infection — mocking Joe Biden at Tuesday's debate for wearing a mask pic.twitter.com/Q9cFtqezwc — @robertmaguire.bsky.social (@RobertMaguire_) October 2, 2020
“I don’t wear a mask like him,” Trump said, gesturing toward Biden. “Every time you see him, he’s got a mask. He could be speaking 200 feet away from him and he shows up with the biggest mask I’ve ever seen.”
Biden responded by noting that the director of the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Robert Redfield, just told Congress that nationwide mask-wearing could bring the pandemic under control in 6-12 weeks, potentially saving tens of thousands of lives. When Trump interrupted with the false claim that health experts have “also said the opposite,” about the effectiveness of masks, Biden replied dismissively, “No serious person’s said the opposite.”
Moments later, Trump also made fun of Biden for observing social distancing at small-scale campaign events during the pandemic, and denied that the crowded rallies he has held recently to make himself feel loved have threatened public health. “So far we have had no problem whatsoever,” the president claimed, relying on voters to have forgotten, or never heard, that his supporter Herman Cain tested positive for Covid-19 nine days after sitting unmasked at Trump’s indoor rally in Tulsa in June, and died weeks later.
Biden then pointed out that Trump had said recently that his rallies were safe, for him, because he maintained social distance from his supporters. “He’s not worried about the people out there, breathing on one another, cheek by jowl,” Biden said. “We’ve had no negative effect,” Trump interjected. “No negative effect?” Biden replied. “Come on.”
Trump’s wife, Melania, and one of his closest aides, Hope Hicks, also tested positive for the viral disease on Thursday. Both women have, at times, worn masks in public, but have also regularly been seen unmasked, including this week.
Photo: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
The first lady, like other members of Trump’s family, wore a mask as she took her seat in the debate hall at the Cleveland Clinic on Tuesday, but later removed it.
A reminder that the Trump family refused to wear masks during the debate, when the rest of the audience was pic.twitter.com/yS0kGDTLrQ — Dan Saltzstein (@dansaltzstein) October 2, 2020
Naomi Biden, one of the candidate’s granddaughters, tweeted about that disregard for the rules from the other side of the debate hall.
Why is the Trump family allowed to not wear masks in the debate hall while everyone else follows the rules? — Naomi Biden (@NaomiBiden) September 30, 2020
At the conclusion of the debate, when she crossed the stage in front of Biden to join her husband, Melania Trump was unmasked. By contrast, Jill Biden, the former vice president’s wife, wore a mask throughout the indoor event, and continued to do so as she stood with her husband on stage after it concluded.
First Lady Melania Trump and Dr. Jill Biden join their husbands at the conclusion of the first presidential debate. #Debates2020 pic.twitter.com/GbdtBQjjNm — The Hill (@thehill) September 30, 2020
Although masks were supposed to be required for everyone in the debate audience, Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who was in the hall reported on Twitter that the entire Trump entourage “came in with masks, took them off as soon as they sat down, refused to put them on when asked by Cleveland Clinic personnel.”
Photo: Olivier Douliery/AFP/Bloomberg via Getty Images
After news of Trump’s positive test was reported on Thursday, Ornstein observed that the debate had taken place with “Trump shouting only 8-10 feet from Biden for 90 mins. Oy.”
On Friday morning, the Bidens were both tested but showed no sign of infection. “I’m happy to report that Jill and I have tested negative for COVID,” the former vice president wrote on Twitter. “Thank you to everyone for your messages of concern. I hope this serves as a reminder: wear a mask, keep social distance, and wash your hands.”
Chris Wallace, the debate moderator, confirmed on Fox News on Friday that Trump, his aides and his family had also flouted the rules by not wearing masks in their pre-debate run through on stage. “There seems to have been a disregard for the risks of the virus,” Wallace said.
Chris Wallace on Fox News suggests that at least some campaign officials at Tuesday’s debate were not tested on site: “[Some] didn’t arrive until Tuesday afternoon … there wouldn’t have been enough time to have the test and have the debate … there was an honor system" pic.twitter.com/EtLQPUGPcX — JM Rieger (@RiegerReport) October 2, 2020
The Fox News anchor also explained that while he was tested by the Cleveland Clinic in advance of the debate, the president and his aides were allowed to screen themselves for the virus. “There was an honor system,” Wallace said on testing for the virus, “when it came to the people that came into the hall from the two campaigns.”
Incredibly, after Hicks was diagnosed on Thursday, Trump still went to a fundraiser at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. “Trump was in close contact with dozens of other people, including campaign supporters, at a roundtable event,” The Washington Post reports. “The president did not wear a mask Thursday, including at the events at his golf course and on the plane, officials said. He was tested after he returned to the White House.”
The president’s disdain for mask-wearing has been one of the few constants in his response to the pandemic that has now killed nearly 208,000 Americans. In early April, when Trump himself announced that his coronavirus task force recommended mask-wearing to slow the spread of the virus, he immediately made it clear that he had no intention of doing so. Asked why, Trump said that he was concerned about how he would look, and suggested that the pandemic would soon be over anyway. “This will pass, and hopefully it will pass very quickly,” he told reporters.
Trump’s apparent worry was that the public might be alarmed, or perhaps tipped off to the true scale of the crisis he was intentionally downplaying, by seeing him in a mask. His concern clearly influenced the behavior of his aides and senior administration officials. In April, Vice President Mike Pence refused to wear a mask during a visit to the Mayo Clinic, where it was mandatory.
Also in April, the White House reportedly stepped in to block plans by the United States Postal Service to deliver five face covering to every American household, 650 million masks in total.
A month later, when food industry executives in Iowa arrived for a roundtable discussion with Pence, a White House aide was spotted on camera asking them to remove the masks they were wearing before the vice president entered the room.
Earlier on Friday, Notre Dame revealed that the university’s president, Rev. John Jenkins, had also tested positive. Days earlier, Jenkins had apologized for not wearing a mask and shaking hands with several people at the White House ceremony for Judge Amy Coney Barrett last weekend. Footage of the event appeared to show Jenkins shaking hands with Attorney General Bill Barr.
This looks to me like Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins & Attorney General William Barr shaking hands while both refused to wear masks. https://t.co/bQUkE7oBSt — David Darmofal (@david_darmofal) October 2, 2020
“When I arrived at the White House, a medical professional took me to an exam room to obtain a nasal swab for a rapid COVID-19 test,” Jenkins wrote in an email to Notre Dame’s faculty, staff and students on Monday. “I was then directed to a room with others, all fully masked, until we were notified that we had all tested negative and were told that it was safe to remove our masks. We were then escorted to the Rose Garden, where I was seated with others who also had just been tested and received negative results.”
Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, also tested positive for Covid-19, as did Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah who just met with Barrett on Tuesday, an encounter during which neither of them wore a mask.
I was remarkably impressed by Judge Barrett. My meeting with her was fantastic. She is a judge, a legal scholar, and a lawyer with outstanding credentials. We had a great conversation and I am very much looking forward to speaking with her more during her confirmation hearing. pic.twitter.com/rfGt717PlW — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 29, 2020
Lee was also seen shaking hands and hugging people at the Rose Garden ceremony for Trump’s Supreme Court nominee last Saturday.
The idea of hugging anyone who is not my wife right now is unthinkable. These people, either by virtue of taxpayer-funded daily testing or sheer ignorance, are afforded things those of us with families or loved ones who would die if infected have been denied for months. pic.twitter.com/2pCSBwtFZ0 — Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) September 26, 2020
On Friday evening, Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican revealed that he too had tested positive for Covid-19. Tillis, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, met with Barrett on Wednesday — indoors, unmasked — and also attended the White House event for her last Saturday.
I had a great meeting with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, which reaffirmed what a supremely qualified nominee she is and I look forward to getting her confirmed. Judge Barrett made it clear that her duty is to uphold the Constitution and interpret the law as written. #ACB #ConfirmACB pic.twitter.com/wRzbnw33m4 — Senator Thom Tillis (@SenThomTillis) September 30, 2020
Last Updated: Friday, Oct. 2, 2:55 p.m. PDT
This article was updated to report that President Donald Trump is being treated with an experimental drug cocktail and moved to the hospital, that former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for Covid-19 on Friday, and that recent White House visitors Sen. Mike Lee, Sen. Thom Tillis, Ronna McDaniel and Rev. John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, all tested positive.