Showing posts with label Not Much Blog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Not Much Blog. Show all posts
Thursday, March 26, 2020
Obama presses for social distancing policies to remain in place
Obama presses for social distancing policies to remain in place
By Zack Budryk - 03/25/20 01:14 PM EDT
Article Link
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/489467-obama-presses-for-social-distancing-policies-to-remain-in-place
Former President Obama on Wednesday urged the continuance of social-distancing protocols amid a push by some lawmakers and public figures to end such measures earlier than public health officials have recommended.
“These are the burdens our medical heroes already face in NYC,” Obama tweeted Wednesday. The former president linked in his tweet a New Yorker article that described the burdens the coronavirus pandemic has placed on New York’s hospitals, including overextended intensive care units, lack of personal protective equipment and unclear protocols on handling coronavirus patients.
“It's only going to get harder across the country. Another reason to maintain social distancing policies at least until we have comprehensive testing in place. Not just for our sake—for theirs,” he added.
The tweet comes as President Trump has increasingly called for businesses and the economy to be reopened sooner rather than later, suggesting public gatherings could resume by Easter Sunday. However, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci said Tuesday that this date should be “flexible."
“You can destroy a country this way, by closing it down, where it literally goes from being the most prosperous,” Trump said Tuesday.
However, other public officials have pushed back on the idea of a quick return to business as usual with Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), who is self-quarantining, telling CNN on Wednesday that the lockdown should be nationwide.
“I think the country should be on a lockdown,” Espaillat said on CNN. “Rather than abiding by this Easter Sunday scenario that the President is talking about, we should be in total lockdown.”
The Growing Chaos Inside New York’s Hospitals
By Lizzie Widdicombe
March 23, 2020
Article Link https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/shits-really-going-to-hit-the-fan-inside-new-yorks-overburdened-hospitals
Link https://www.newyorker.com/
Trump Says Parts of U.S. Could Go Back to Work in a Few Weeks
Trump Says Parts of U.S. Could Go Back to Work in a Few Weeks
Rebecca Ballhaus, Stephanie Armour Thursday,3/26/2020
Article Link
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-parts-of-us-could-go-back-to-work-in-a-few-weeks/ar-BB11HLp1?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=spartanntp
Quoted Excerpts:
But the federal government’s ability to force the reopening of the economy is limited, as much of that power rests with state governors and mayors.
The president claimed in a tweet Wednesday that the news media was pressuring him to keep much of the economy closed to hurt his re-election chances in November.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who last week ordered the state’s 40 million residents to stay at home except for essential activities, said it would be “misleading to represent” that California would reopen by Easter.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, tweeted that he was looking forward to the day when the economy could reopen, but “it’s not yet here.”
Public health experts say it could take months, if not years, before life returns to normal. They say the U.S. is woefully behind on the type of widespread testing and quarantine measures adopted in Singapore and South Korea that were successful at reducing spread of the virus. They also say that reopening too soon could overwhelm hospitals, endanger health-care workers and fuel the virus’s spread in states where it isn’t prevalent now.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, warned in a briefing Wednesday that in the absence of necessary preparations, the virus could resurge once restrictions are eased. “The last thing any country needs is to open schools and businesses, only to be forced to close them again because of a resurgence,” he said.
Ned Price, who was an adviser to former President Barack Obama, said that while Mr. Trump has authority over CDC guidelines, the agency has traditionally been granted a level of independence by previous presidents. That practice, however, is dictated “not by laws but by norms,” which Mr. Trump has made a habit of shattering, he said.
Rebecca Ballhaus, Stephanie Armour Thursday,3/26/2020
Article Link
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-parts-of-us-could-go-back-to-work-in-a-few-weeks/ar-BB11HLp1?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=spartanntp
Quoted Excerpts:
But the federal government’s ability to force the reopening of the economy is limited, as much of that power rests with state governors and mayors.
Mr. Trump’s timeline also is considerably shorter than what many health experts, including some in his own administration, have said will be necessary to blunt the spread of coronavirus across the U.S. and keep the nation’s health care system from being overwhelmed.
The president claimed in a tweet Wednesday that the news media was pressuring him to keep much of the economy closed to hurt his re-election chances in November.
While the Trump administration has issued guidelines urging Americans to stay home, the most severe restrictions nationwide have come from governors, who have ordered nonessential businesses to close in at least 24 states and have imposed restrictions on those businesses in a dozen more. Nineteen states plan to or already require residents to stay home. Federal guidelines don’t trump state restrictions.
Governors in both parties rejected the Easter timeline the president offered and said they planned to chart their own course. Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose state has been by far the hardest hit by the virus, stressed that the federal government was offering suggestions, not decrees. “They call them guidelines because they are guidelines,” he said at a briefing Wednesday. “We’ll come up with a plan that works for New York.”Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who last week ordered the state’s 40 million residents to stay at home except for essential activities, said it would be “misleading to represent” that California would reopen by Easter.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, tweeted that he was looking forward to the day when the economy could reopen, but “it’s not yet here.”
Public health experts say it could take months, if not years, before life returns to normal. They say the U.S. is woefully behind on the type of widespread testing and quarantine measures adopted in Singapore and South Korea that were successful at reducing spread of the virus. They also say that reopening too soon could overwhelm hospitals, endanger health-care workers and fuel the virus’s spread in states where it isn’t prevalent now.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, warned in a briefing Wednesday that in the absence of necessary preparations, the virus could resurge once restrictions are eased. “The last thing any country needs is to open schools and businesses, only to be forced to close them again because of a resurgence,” he said.
Ned Price, who was an adviser to former President Barack Obama, said that while Mr. Trump has authority over CDC guidelines, the agency has traditionally been granted a level of independence by previous presidents. That practice, however, is dictated “not by laws but by norms,” which Mr. Trump has made a habit of shattering, he said.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
Trump Has Given Unusual Leeway to Fauci, but Aides Say He’s Losing His Patience
Trump Has Given Unusual Leeway to Fauci, but Aides Say He’s Losing His Patience
Maggie Haberman Monday,3/23/2020
Article Link https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-given-unusual-leeway-to-fauci-but-aides-say-hes-losing-his-patience/ar-BB11BO9P?li=BBnb7Kz
Several quoted excerpts:
President Trump has praised Dr. Anthony S. Fauci as a “major television star.” He has tried to demonstrate that the administration is giving him free will to speak. And he has deferred to Dr. Fauci’s opinion several times at the coronavirus task force’s televised briefings.
But Dr. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, has grown bolder in correcting the president’s falsehoods and overly rosy statements about the spread of the coronavirus in the past two weeks — and become a hero to the president’s critics because of it. And now Mr. Trump’s patience has started to wear thin.
So has the patience of some White House advisers, who see Dr. Fauci as taking shots at the president in some of his interviews with print reporters while offering extensive praise for Mr. Trump in television interviews with conservative hosts.
Mr. Trump knows that Dr. Fauci, who has advised every president since Ronald Reagan, is seen as credible with a large swath of the public and with journalists, and so he has given the doctor more leeway to contradict him than he has other officials, according to multiple advisers to the president.
Still, the president has resisted portraying the virus as the kind of threat described by Dr. Fauci and other public health experts. In his effort to create a positive vision of a future where the virus is less of a danger, critics have accused Mr. Trump of giving false hope.
Dr. Fauci and Mr. Trump have publicly disagreed on how long it will take for a coronavirus vaccine to become available and whether an anti-malaria drug, chloroquine, could help those with an acute form of the virus. Dr. Fauci has made clear that he does not think the drug necessarily holds the potential that Mr. Trump says it does.
In an interview with Science Magazine, Dr. Fauci responded to a question about how he had managed to not get fired by saying that, to Mr. Trump’s “credit, even though we disagree on some things, he listens. He goes his own way. He has his own style. But on substantive issues, he does listen to what I say.”
But Dr. Fauci also said there was a limit to what he could do when Mr. Trump made false statements, as he often does during the briefings.
“I can’t jump in front of the microphone and push him down,” Dr. Fauci said. “OK, he said it. Let’s try and get it corrected for the next time.”
Dr. Fauci came to his current role as the AIDS epidemic was exploding and President Reagan was paying it little attention. He and C. Everett Koop, the surgeon general, were widely credited with spurring the Reagan administration to action against AIDS, a fact that underscores Dr. Fauci’s ability to negotiate difficult politics.
He has recognized Mr. Trump’s need for praise; in the president’s presence and with audiences that are friendly to him, Dr. Fauci has been complimentary. He told the radio host Mark Levin on Fox News of the administration’s response to the virus: “I can’t imagine that under any circumstances that anybody could be doing more.”
Maggie Haberman Monday,3/23/2020
Article Link https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-given-unusual-leeway-to-fauci-but-aides-say-hes-losing-his-patience/ar-BB11BO9P?li=BBnb7Kz
Several quoted excerpts:
President Trump has praised Dr. Anthony S. Fauci as a “major television star.” He has tried to demonstrate that the administration is giving him free will to speak. And he has deferred to Dr. Fauci’s opinion several times at the coronavirus task force’s televised briefings.
But Dr. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, has grown bolder in correcting the president’s falsehoods and overly rosy statements about the spread of the coronavirus in the past two weeks — and become a hero to the president’s critics because of it. And now Mr. Trump’s patience has started to wear thin.
So has the patience of some White House advisers, who see Dr. Fauci as taking shots at the president in some of his interviews with print reporters while offering extensive praise for Mr. Trump in television interviews with conservative hosts.
Mr. Trump knows that Dr. Fauci, who has advised every president since Ronald Reagan, is seen as credible with a large swath of the public and with journalists, and so he has given the doctor more leeway to contradict him than he has other officials, according to multiple advisers to the president.
Still, the president has resisted portraying the virus as the kind of threat described by Dr. Fauci and other public health experts. In his effort to create a positive vision of a future where the virus is less of a danger, critics have accused Mr. Trump of giving false hope.
Dr. Fauci and Mr. Trump have publicly disagreed on how long it will take for a coronavirus vaccine to become available and whether an anti-malaria drug, chloroquine, could help those with an acute form of the virus. Dr. Fauci has made clear that he does not think the drug necessarily holds the potential that Mr. Trump says it does.
In an interview with Science Magazine, Dr. Fauci responded to a question about how he had managed to not get fired by saying that, to Mr. Trump’s “credit, even though we disagree on some things, he listens. He goes his own way. He has his own style. But on substantive issues, he does listen to what I say.”
But Dr. Fauci also said there was a limit to what he could do when Mr. Trump made false statements, as he often does during the briefings.
“I can’t jump in front of the microphone and push him down,” Dr. Fauci said. “OK, he said it. Let’s try and get it corrected for the next time.”
Dr. Fauci came to his current role as the AIDS epidemic was exploding and President Reagan was paying it little attention. He and C. Everett Koop, the surgeon general, were widely credited with spurring the Reagan administration to action against AIDS, a fact that underscores Dr. Fauci’s ability to negotiate difficult politics.
He has recognized Mr. Trump’s need for praise; in the president’s presence and with audiences that are friendly to him, Dr. Fauci has been complimentary. He told the radio host Mark Levin on Fox News of the administration’s response to the virus: “I can’t imagine that under any circumstances that anybody could be doing more.”
How South Korea Flattened the Coronavirus Curve
Notes:
I quoted the last part/paragraph from the article.
I am not suggesting that South Korea's methods are right or wrong.
I do not know any answers.
I am not a medical expert.
I do suggest that before you arrive at an opinion, read the entire article.
How South Korea Flattened the Coronavirus Curve
Max Fisher and Choe Sang-Hun Monday,3/23/2020
Article Link https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-south-korea-flattened-the-coronavirus-curve/ar-BB11AJwA?ocid=spartanntp
Note: I quoted this last part/paragraph from the article.
Is The Korean Model Transferable?
For all the attention to South Korea’s successes, its methods and containment tools are not prohibitively complex or expensive.
Some of the technology the country has used is as simple as specialized rubber gloves and cotton swabs. Of the seven countries with worse outbreaks than South Korea’s, five are richer.
Experts cite three major hurdles to following South Korea’s lead, none related to cost or technology.
One is political will. Many governments have hesitated to impose onerous measures in the absence of a crisis-level outbreak.
Another is public will. Social trust is higher in South Korea than in many other countries, particularly Western democracies beset by polarization and populist backlash.
But time poses the greatest challenge. It may be “too late,” Dr. Ki said, for countries deep into epidemics to control outbreaks as quickly or efficiently as South Korea has.
China turned back the catastrophic first outbreak in Hubei, a province larger than most European countries, though at the cost of shutting down its economy.
South Korea’s methods could help the United States, though “we probably lost the chance to have an outcome like South Korea,” Mr. Gottlieb, the former F.D.A. commissioner, wrote on Twitter. “We must do everything to avert the tragic suffering being borne by Italy.”
I quoted the last part/paragraph from the article.
I am not suggesting that South Korea's methods are right or wrong.
I do not know any answers.
I am not a medical expert.
I do suggest that before you arrive at an opinion, read the entire article.
How South Korea Flattened the Coronavirus Curve
Max Fisher and Choe Sang-Hun Monday,3/23/2020
Article Link https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-south-korea-flattened-the-coronavirus-curve/ar-BB11AJwA?ocid=spartanntp
Note: I quoted this last part/paragraph from the article.
Is The Korean Model Transferable?
For all the attention to South Korea’s successes, its methods and containment tools are not prohibitively complex or expensive.
Some of the technology the country has used is as simple as specialized rubber gloves and cotton swabs. Of the seven countries with worse outbreaks than South Korea’s, five are richer.
Experts cite three major hurdles to following South Korea’s lead, none related to cost or technology.
One is political will. Many governments have hesitated to impose onerous measures in the absence of a crisis-level outbreak.
Another is public will. Social trust is higher in South Korea than in many other countries, particularly Western democracies beset by polarization and populist backlash.
But time poses the greatest challenge. It may be “too late,” Dr. Ki said, for countries deep into epidemics to control outbreaks as quickly or efficiently as South Korea has.
China turned back the catastrophic first outbreak in Hubei, a province larger than most European countries, though at the cost of shutting down its economy.
South Korea’s methods could help the United States, though “we probably lost the chance to have an outcome like South Korea,” Mr. Gottlieb, the former F.D.A. commissioner, wrote on Twitter. “We must do everything to avert the tragic suffering being borne by Italy.”
Saturday, March 21, 2020
U.S. intelligence reports from January and February warned about a likely pandemic
National Security
U.S. intelligence reports from January and February warned about a likely pandemic
By Shane Harris, Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey and Ellen Nakashima
March 20, 2020 at 8:10 p.m. EDT
Article Link https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-intelligence-reports-from-january-and-february-warned-about-a-likely-pandemic/2020/03/20/299d8cda-6ad5-11ea-b5f1-a5a804158597_story.html
Link To https://www.washingtonpost.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. intelligence reports from January and February warned about a likely pandemic
Shane Harris, Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey, Ellen Nakashima Friday,3/20/2020
Article Link https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-intelligence-reports-from-january-and-february-warned-about-a-likely-pandemic/ar-BB11udi8?ocid=spartanntp
U.S. intelligence agencies were issuing ominous, classified warnings in January and February about the global danger posed by the coronavirus while President Trump and lawmakers played down the threat and failed to take action that might have slowed the spread of the pathogen, according to U.S. officials familiar with spy agency reporting.
The intelligence reports didn’t predict when the virus might land on U.S. shores or recommend particular steps that public health officials should take, issues outside the purview of the intelligence agencies. But they did track the spread of the virus in China, and later in other countries, and warned that Chinese officials appeared to be minimizing the severity of the outbreak.
Taken together, the reports and warnings painted an early picture of a virus that showed the characteristics of a globe-encircling pandemic that could require governments to take swift actions to contain it. But despite that constant flow of reporting, Trump continued publicly and privately to play down the threat the virus posed to Americans. Lawmakers, too, did not grapple with the virus in earnest until this month, as officials scrambled to keep citizens in their homes and hospitals braced for a surge in patients suffering from covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.
Intelligence agencies “have been warning on this since January,” said a U.S. official who had access to intelligence reporting that was disseminated to members of Congress and their staffs as well as to officials in the Trump administration, and who, along with others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive information.
“Donald Trump may not have been expecting this, but a lot of other people in the government were — they just couldn’t get him to do anything about it,” this official said. “The system was blinking red.”
Spokespeople for the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, and a White House spokesman rebutted criticism of Trump’s response.
“President Trump has taken historic, aggressive measures to protect the health, wealth and safety of the American people — and did so, while the media and Democrats chose to only focus on the stupid politics of a sham illegitimate impeachment,” Hogan Gidley said in a statement. “It’s more than disgusting, despicable and disgraceful for cowardly unnamed sources to attempt to rewrite history — it’s a clear threat to this great country.”
Public health experts have criticized China for being slow to respond to the coronavirus outbreak, which originated in Wuhan, and have said precious time was lost in the effort to slow the spread. At a White House briefing Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said officials had been alerted to the initial reports of the virus by discussions that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had with Chinese colleagues on Jan. 3.
The warnings from U.S. intelligence agencies increased in volume toward the end of January and into early February, said officials familiar with the reports. By then, a majority of the intelligence reporting included in daily briefing papers and digests from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA was about covid-19, said officials who have read the reports.
The surge in warnings coincided with a move by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) to sell dozens of stocks worth between $628,033 and $1.72 million. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Burr was privy to virtually all of the highly classified reporting on the coronavirus. Burr issued a statement Friday defending his sell-off, saying he did so based entirely on publicly available information, and he called for the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate.
A key task for analysts during disease outbreaks is to determine whether foreign officials are trying to minimize the effects of an outbreak or take steps to hide a public health crisis, according to current and former officials familiar with the process.
At the State Department, personnel had been nervously tracking early reports about the virus. One official noted that it was discussed at a meeting in the third week of January, around the time that cable traffic showed that U.S. diplomats in Wuhan were being brought home on chartered planes — a sign that the public health risk was significant. A colleague at the White House mentioned how concerned he was about the transmissibility of the virus.
“In January, there was obviously a lot of chatter,” the official said.
Inside the White House, Trump’s advisers struggled to get him to take the virus seriously, according to multiple officials with knowledge of meetings among those advisers and with the president.
Azar couldn’t get through to Trump to speak with him about the virus until Jan. 18, according to two senior administration officials. When he reached Trump by phone, the president interjected to ask about vaping and when flavored vaping products would be back on the market, the senior administration officials said.
On Jan. 27, White House aides huddled with then-acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney in his office, trying to get senior officials to pay more attention to the virus, according to people briefed on the meeting. Joe Grogan, the head of the White House Domestic Policy Council, argued that the administration needed to take the virus seriously or it could cost the president his reelection, and that dealing with the virus was likely to dominate life in the United States for many months.
Mulvaney then began convening more regular meetings. In early briefings, however, officials said Trump was dismissive because he did not believe that the virus had spread widely throughout the United States.
By early February, Grogan and others worried that there weren’t enough tests to determine the rate of infection, according to people who spoke directly to Grogan. Other officials, including Matthew Pottinger, the president’s deputy national security adviser, began calling for a more forceful response, according to people briefed on White House meetings.
But Trump resisted and continued to assure Americans that the coronavirus would never run rampant as it had in other countries.
“I think it’s going to work out fine,” Trump said on Feb. 19. “I think when we get into April, in the warmer weather, that has a very negative effect on that and that type of a virus.”
“The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA,” Trump tweeted five days later. “Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”
But earlier that month, a senior official in the Department of Health and Human Services delivered a starkly different message to the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a classified briefing that four U.S. officials said covered the coronavirus and its global health implications.
Robert Kadlec, the assistant secretary for preparedness and response — who was joined by intelligence officials, including from the CIA — told committee members that the virus posed a “serious” threat, one of those officials said.
Kadlec didn’t provide specific recommendations, but he said that to get ahead of the virus and blunt its effects, Americans would need to take actions that could disrupt their daily lives, the official said. “It was very alarming.”
Trump’s insistence on the contrary seemed to rest in his relationship with China’s President Xi Jingping, whom Trump believed was providing him with reliable information about how the virus was spreading in China, despite reports from intelligence agencies that Chinese officials were not being candid about the true scale of the crisis.
Some of Trump’s advisers told him that Beijing was not providing accurate numbers of people who were infected or who had died, according to administration officials. Rather than press China to be more forthcoming, Trump publicly praised its response.
“China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus,” Trump tweeted Jan. 24. “The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”
Some of Trump’s advisers encouraged him to be tougher on China over its decision not to allow teams from the CDC into the country, administration officials said.
In one February meeting, the president said that if he struck a tougher tone against Xi, the Chinese would be less willing to give the Americans information about how they were tackling the outbreak.
Trump on Feb. 3 banned foreigners who had been in China in the previous 14 days from entering the United States, a step he often credits for helping to protect Americans against the virus. He has also said publicly that the Chinese weren’t honest about the effects of the virus. But that travel ban wasn’t accompanied by additional significant steps to prepare for when the virus eventually infected people in the United States in great numbers.
As the disease spread beyond China, U.S. spy agencies tracked outbreaks in Iran, South Korea, Taiwan, Italy and elsewhere in Europe, the officials familiar with those reports said. The majority of the information came from public sources, including news reports and official statements, but a significant portion also came from classified intelligence sources. As new cases popped up, the volume of reporting spiked.
As the first cases of infection were confirmed in the United States, Trump continued to insist that the risk to Americans was small.
“I think the virus is going to be — it’s going to be fine,” he said on Feb. 10.
“We have a very small number of people in the country, right now, with it,” he said four days later. “It’s like around 12. Many of them are getting better. Some are fully recovered already. So we’re in very good shape.”
On Feb. 25, Nancy Messonnier, a senior CDC official, sounded perhaps the most significant public alarm to that point, when she told reporters that the coronavirus was likely to spread within communities in the United States and that disruptions to daily life could be “severe.” Trump called Azar on his way back from a trip to India and complained that Messonnier was scaring the stock markets, according to two senior administration officials.
Trump eventually changed his tone after being shown statistical models about the spread of the virus from other countries and hearing directly from Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House coronavirus task force, as well as from chief executives last week rattled by a plunge in the stock market, said people familiar with Trump’s conversations.
But by then, the signs pointing to a major outbreak in the United States were everywhere.
shane.harris@washpost.com
greg.miller@washpost.com
josh.dawsey@washpost.com
ellen.nakashima@washpost.com
Yasmeen Abutaleb contributed to this report.
U.S. intelligence reports from January and February warned about a likely pandemic
By Shane Harris, Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey and Ellen Nakashima
March 20, 2020 at 8:10 p.m. EDT
Article Link https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-intelligence-reports-from-january-and-february-warned-about-a-likely-pandemic/2020/03/20/299d8cda-6ad5-11ea-b5f1-a5a804158597_story.html
Link To https://www.washingtonpost.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. intelligence reports from January and February warned about a likely pandemic
Shane Harris, Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey, Ellen Nakashima Friday,3/20/2020
Article Link https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-intelligence-reports-from-january-and-february-warned-about-a-likely-pandemic/ar-BB11udi8?ocid=spartanntp
U.S. intelligence agencies were issuing ominous, classified warnings in January and February about the global danger posed by the coronavirus while President Trump and lawmakers played down the threat and failed to take action that might have slowed the spread of the pathogen, according to U.S. officials familiar with spy agency reporting.
The intelligence reports didn’t predict when the virus might land on U.S. shores or recommend particular steps that public health officials should take, issues outside the purview of the intelligence agencies. But they did track the spread of the virus in China, and later in other countries, and warned that Chinese officials appeared to be minimizing the severity of the outbreak.
Taken together, the reports and warnings painted an early picture of a virus that showed the characteristics of a globe-encircling pandemic that could require governments to take swift actions to contain it. But despite that constant flow of reporting, Trump continued publicly and privately to play down the threat the virus posed to Americans. Lawmakers, too, did not grapple with the virus in earnest until this month, as officials scrambled to keep citizens in their homes and hospitals braced for a surge in patients suffering from covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.
Intelligence agencies “have been warning on this since January,” said a U.S. official who had access to intelligence reporting that was disseminated to members of Congress and their staffs as well as to officials in the Trump administration, and who, along with others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive information.
“Donald Trump may not have been expecting this, but a lot of other people in the government were — they just couldn’t get him to do anything about it,” this official said. “The system was blinking red.”
Spokespeople for the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, and a White House spokesman rebutted criticism of Trump’s response.
“President Trump has taken historic, aggressive measures to protect the health, wealth and safety of the American people — and did so, while the media and Democrats chose to only focus on the stupid politics of a sham illegitimate impeachment,” Hogan Gidley said in a statement. “It’s more than disgusting, despicable and disgraceful for cowardly unnamed sources to attempt to rewrite history — it’s a clear threat to this great country.”
Public health experts have criticized China for being slow to respond to the coronavirus outbreak, which originated in Wuhan, and have said precious time was lost in the effort to slow the spread. At a White House briefing Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said officials had been alerted to the initial reports of the virus by discussions that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had with Chinese colleagues on Jan. 3.
The warnings from U.S. intelligence agencies increased in volume toward the end of January and into early February, said officials familiar with the reports. By then, a majority of the intelligence reporting included in daily briefing papers and digests from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA was about covid-19, said officials who have read the reports.
The surge in warnings coincided with a move by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) to sell dozens of stocks worth between $628,033 and $1.72 million. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Burr was privy to virtually all of the highly classified reporting on the coronavirus. Burr issued a statement Friday defending his sell-off, saying he did so based entirely on publicly available information, and he called for the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate.
A key task for analysts during disease outbreaks is to determine whether foreign officials are trying to minimize the effects of an outbreak or take steps to hide a public health crisis, according to current and former officials familiar with the process.
At the State Department, personnel had been nervously tracking early reports about the virus. One official noted that it was discussed at a meeting in the third week of January, around the time that cable traffic showed that U.S. diplomats in Wuhan were being brought home on chartered planes — a sign that the public health risk was significant. A colleague at the White House mentioned how concerned he was about the transmissibility of the virus.
“In January, there was obviously a lot of chatter,” the official said.
Inside the White House, Trump’s advisers struggled to get him to take the virus seriously, according to multiple officials with knowledge of meetings among those advisers and with the president.
Azar couldn’t get through to Trump to speak with him about the virus until Jan. 18, according to two senior administration officials. When he reached Trump by phone, the president interjected to ask about vaping and when flavored vaping products would be back on the market, the senior administration officials said.
On Jan. 27, White House aides huddled with then-acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney in his office, trying to get senior officials to pay more attention to the virus, according to people briefed on the meeting. Joe Grogan, the head of the White House Domestic Policy Council, argued that the administration needed to take the virus seriously or it could cost the president his reelection, and that dealing with the virus was likely to dominate life in the United States for many months.
Mulvaney then began convening more regular meetings. In early briefings, however, officials said Trump was dismissive because he did not believe that the virus had spread widely throughout the United States.
By early February, Grogan and others worried that there weren’t enough tests to determine the rate of infection, according to people who spoke directly to Grogan. Other officials, including Matthew Pottinger, the president’s deputy national security adviser, began calling for a more forceful response, according to people briefed on White House meetings.
But Trump resisted and continued to assure Americans that the coronavirus would never run rampant as it had in other countries.
“I think it’s going to work out fine,” Trump said on Feb. 19. “I think when we get into April, in the warmer weather, that has a very negative effect on that and that type of a virus.”
“The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA,” Trump tweeted five days later. “Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”
But earlier that month, a senior official in the Department of Health and Human Services delivered a starkly different message to the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a classified briefing that four U.S. officials said covered the coronavirus and its global health implications.
Robert Kadlec, the assistant secretary for preparedness and response — who was joined by intelligence officials, including from the CIA — told committee members that the virus posed a “serious” threat, one of those officials said.
Kadlec didn’t provide specific recommendations, but he said that to get ahead of the virus and blunt its effects, Americans would need to take actions that could disrupt their daily lives, the official said. “It was very alarming.”
Trump’s insistence on the contrary seemed to rest in his relationship with China’s President Xi Jingping, whom Trump believed was providing him with reliable information about how the virus was spreading in China, despite reports from intelligence agencies that Chinese officials were not being candid about the true scale of the crisis.
Some of Trump’s advisers told him that Beijing was not providing accurate numbers of people who were infected or who had died, according to administration officials. Rather than press China to be more forthcoming, Trump publicly praised its response.
“China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus,” Trump tweeted Jan. 24. “The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”
Some of Trump’s advisers encouraged him to be tougher on China over its decision not to allow teams from the CDC into the country, administration officials said.
In one February meeting, the president said that if he struck a tougher tone against Xi, the Chinese would be less willing to give the Americans information about how they were tackling the outbreak.
Trump on Feb. 3 banned foreigners who had been in China in the previous 14 days from entering the United States, a step he often credits for helping to protect Americans against the virus. He has also said publicly that the Chinese weren’t honest about the effects of the virus. But that travel ban wasn’t accompanied by additional significant steps to prepare for when the virus eventually infected people in the United States in great numbers.
As the disease spread beyond China, U.S. spy agencies tracked outbreaks in Iran, South Korea, Taiwan, Italy and elsewhere in Europe, the officials familiar with those reports said. The majority of the information came from public sources, including news reports and official statements, but a significant portion also came from classified intelligence sources. As new cases popped up, the volume of reporting spiked.
As the first cases of infection were confirmed in the United States, Trump continued to insist that the risk to Americans was small.
“I think the virus is going to be — it’s going to be fine,” he said on Feb. 10.
“We have a very small number of people in the country, right now, with it,” he said four days later. “It’s like around 12. Many of them are getting better. Some are fully recovered already. So we’re in very good shape.”
On Feb. 25, Nancy Messonnier, a senior CDC official, sounded perhaps the most significant public alarm to that point, when she told reporters that the coronavirus was likely to spread within communities in the United States and that disruptions to daily life could be “severe.” Trump called Azar on his way back from a trip to India and complained that Messonnier was scaring the stock markets, according to two senior administration officials.
Trump eventually changed his tone after being shown statistical models about the spread of the virus from other countries and hearing directly from Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House coronavirus task force, as well as from chief executives last week rattled by a plunge in the stock market, said people familiar with Trump’s conversations.
But by then, the signs pointing to a major outbreak in the United States were everywhere.
shane.harris@washpost.com
greg.miller@washpost.com
josh.dawsey@washpost.com
ellen.nakashima@washpost.com
Yasmeen Abutaleb contributed to this report.
Saturday, March 14, 2020
What we know about the Americans who died from coronavirus
Note: This is not the entire article. For all of the details read the entire article.
What we know about the Americans who died from coronavirus
Saturday,3/14/2020
Quoted Excerpts:
So far, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have not released a summary of basic demographic information about the people who have died, but according to information collected by ABC News' Medical Unit, the majority of deaths have been among people in the 70s, 80s and 90s.
In the U.S., of the cases for which there is data, only one person who died was in their 40s, while two people died in their 50s. Seven people were in their 60s, nine people in their 70s, 13 people in their 80s and 10 people were in their 90s.
This means the vast majority of deaths so far are among people older than 70, which matches roughly with data emerging from Italy, China and other countries hard-hit by COVID-19.
The CDC has said repeatedly that people with underlying medical conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes and immune system disorders, are more likely to die of COVID-19.
What we know about the Americans who died from coronavirus
Saturday,3/14/2020
Article Link
Quoted Excerpts:
So far, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have not released a summary of basic demographic information about the people who have died, but according to information collected by ABC News' Medical Unit, the majority of deaths have been among people in the 70s, 80s and 90s.
In the U.S., of the cases for which there is data, only one person who died was in their 40s, while two people died in their 50s. Seven people were in their 60s, nine people in their 70s, 13 people in their 80s and 10 people were in their 90s.
This means the vast majority of deaths so far are among people older than 70, which matches roughly with data emerging from Italy, China and other countries hard-hit by COVID-19.
The CDC has said repeatedly that people with underlying medical conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes and immune system disorders, are more likely to die of COVID-19.
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Second Blog Post Of Quick Chatting
Blog Post Of Quick Chatting
Day to day chit chat and small talk. Light hearted or serious.
Chatting about what you do when you have the free time or the spare time. Chatting about your day, your evening, your weekend or your week.
Salutations: Hello, good morning, good afternoon, good evening and other small talk.
I stood behind a customer; that was having a conversation with the employee behind the cash register.
I quietly and politely waited to be serviced.
When I saw that I was not going to be acknowledged I just quietly left.
For the record I was not mad.
I have been reading Babbitt.
I recently purchased You Can't Go Home Again.
Babbitt (novel)
Author
Sinclair Lewis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbitt_(novel)
You Can't Go Home Again
Author
Thomas Wolfe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Can%27t_Go_Home_Again
First Blog Post Of Quick Chatting
Link https://notmuch1.blogspot.com/2019/12/blog-post-of-quick-chatting.html
Day to day chit chat and small talk. Light hearted or serious.
Chatting about what you do when you have the free time or the spare time. Chatting about your day, your evening, your weekend or your week.
Salutations: Hello, good morning, good afternoon, good evening and other small talk.
I had some time before my appointment, so I decided to purchase a donut and a beverage.
The donut shop was not busy.I stood behind a customer; that was having a conversation with the employee behind the cash register.
I quietly and politely waited to be serviced.
When I saw that I was not going to be acknowledged I just quietly left.
For the record I was not mad.
I have been reading Babbitt.
I recently purchased You Can't Go Home Again.
Babbitt (novel)
Author
Sinclair Lewis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbitt_(novel)
You Can't Go Home Again
Author
Thomas Wolfe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Can%27t_Go_Home_Again
First Blog Post Of Quick Chatting
Link https://notmuch1.blogspot.com/2019/12/blog-post-of-quick-chatting.html
Sunday, January 12, 2020
FactCheck Posts:Pelosi Did Not ‘Defend’ Soleimani
Link To https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/pelosi-did-not-defend-soleimani/
Link To https://www.factcheck.org/
FactCheck Posts
Pelosi Did Not ‘Defend’ Soleimani
By Robert Farley
Posted on Friday,January10,2020
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has criticized President Donald Trump’s decision to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani as “provocative and disproportionate.” But, contrary to the president’s contention, she did not “defend” Soleimani.
In fact, we were not able to find any examples of Democrats who have defended or “mourned” the death of Iran’s top military commander, despite such claims from several other Republicans.
On Jan. 2, the Pentagon announced that, at Trump’s direction, American troops used a drone and killed Soleimani, Iran’s top security and intelligence commander, at Baghdad International Airport. The Pentagon statement said Soleimani “was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.”
The statement further noted that “Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.”
In a press release put out that day, Pelosi warned that the strike “risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence.” Pelosi also noted that the military action was taken without Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran and “without the consultation of the Congress.”
But nowhere in the release did she “defend” Soleimani, as Trump claimed in remarks to the press on Jan. 9.
Trump, Jan. 9: You know what bothers me? When I see a Nancy Pelosi trying to defend this monster from Iran, who has killed so many people, who has so badly — I mean, so many people are walking around now without legs and without arms. Because he was the big roadside bomb guy. He was the one who would send them to Afghanistan. He would send him to Iraq. He was big. That was his favorite thing. He thought it was wonderful. He doesn’t think it’s wonderful anymore. When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want to defend him, I think that’s a very bad thing for this country. I think that’s a big losing argument, politically, too.
Those comments echo similar statements made by other prominent Republicans.
In an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News on Jan. 6, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley said, “The only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat presidential candidates.” And in an interview with Fox News’ Lou Dobbs on Jan. 8, Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said, Pelosi and the Democrats are “in love with terrorists” and “mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families who are the ones who suffered under Soleimani.” (Two days later, Collins apologized for his remarks.)
Again, we are not aware that Pelosi or any other Democratic leaders or presidential candidates publicly “mourned” the death of Soleimani or defended him. Our colleagues at PolitiFact looked into Haley’s comment and found that while most of the Democratic presidential candidates expressed concern about Trump’s move escalating tensions with Iran, they prefaced their comments by saying that Soleimani had the blood of American soldiers on his hands, and should not be mourned.
We asked the White House when Pelosi defended Soleimani, but it did not respond.
Several times in the past week, Pelosi has made comments critical of Trump’s actions. But she never defended Soleimani.
Pelosi, in a Jan. 4 press release calling on the administration to brief Congress: “The Trump Administration’s provocative, escalatory and disproportionate military engagement continues to put servicemembers, diplomats and citizens of America and our allies in danger.”
Pelosi, in a Jan. 5 “Dear Colleague” letter: “As Members of Congress, our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe. For this reason, we are concerned that the Administration took this action without the consultation of Congress and without respect for Congress’s war powers granted to it by the Constitution.”
Pelosi, in a Jan. 8 press release, after the administration’s briefing: “Members of Congress have serious, urgent concerns about the Administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward. Our concerns were not addressed by the President’s insufficient War Powers Act notification and by the Administration’s briefing today.”
The speaker elaborated on her position during a press conference on Jan. 9. She again said Trump “conducted a provocative, disproportionate airstrike against Iran which endangered Americans and did so without consulting Congress.” But she said she was aware of “just how bad Soleimani was.”
Pelosi, Jan. 9: And so what happened in the view of many of us is not a promotion of peace, but an escalation. Not that we have any confidence in the goodness – or the good intentions of Iran, and we certainly do not respect, and I from my intelligence background, know just how bad Soleimani was. It’s not because we expect good things from them, but we expect great things from us.
Later in the press conference, Pelosi described Soleimani as “a terrible person” who “did bad things.”
Pelosi, Jan. 9: As I say, we have no illusions about Iran, no illusions about Soleimani, who was a terrible person. Did bad things. But it’s not about how bad they are, it’s about how good we are, protecting the people in a way that prevents war and does not have us producing, again and again, generations of veterans who are suffering.
Trump’s comments occurred about the same time that Pelosi spoke, and we don’t know if Trump heard her remarks when he made his. But House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy responded directly to Pelosi’s remarks and parroted Trump’s claim that she was “defending” Soleimani.
McCarthy, Jan. 9: I never thought there would be a moment in time that the Speaker of the House of Representatives would actually be defending Soleimani. … Did you listen to what the Speaker just said? “Soleimani was a bad person, but…” There is no “but.” He’s a bad person because he killed American soldiers. … He’s a bad person because he was planning more against Americans. The president was right in his actions, and we are safer today for it.
Later that afternoon on the House floor, Pelosi again argued that Trump’s actions “endangered our servicemen and women, our diplomats and others,” but added that Soleimani “was somebody that we do not mourn the loss of.”
Pelosi, Jan. 9: But with the President’s actions last week, he endangered our servicemen and women, our diplomats and others by taking a serious risk of escalation with tensions with Iran. This does not come with any respect for Iran. We know what bad actors they are in the world. We know that Soleimani, I from my Intelligence background, know that Soleimani was somebody that we do not mourn the loss of, a bad – he did very evil things in the world. But, we also know that when we take an action, we have to understand the ramifications of it.
We take no position on whether the president’s actions to take out Soleimani will ultimately make Americans more or less safe. But there is a distinction between criticizing the president’s decision to kill Soleimani and “defending” him, and there is no evidence that Pelosi defended Soleimani or “mourned” his death. In fact, she has made statements directly contradicting that claim.
Categories
FactCheck Posts
Location
International
Issue
Iran
terrorism
People
Donald Trump
doug collins
KevinMcCarthy
Nancy Pelosi
Qassem Soleimani
Next StoryA Misleading Take on Alabama’s Abortion Law
Friday, January 10, 2020
House passes measure seeking to limit Trump's military actions against Iran
My Comment: I say thank you to the House for passing this bill.Iran Tensions
House passes measure seeking to limit Trump's military actions against Iran
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the resolution would send a clear message that the president shouldn't take further military action against Iran without Congress' approval.
Article Linkhttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-says-house-send-clear-war-powers-statement-trump-thursday-n1113006#anchor-Bindingornot
Thursday, Jan. 9, 2020, 12:25 PM EST / Updated Thursday,Jan. 9, 2020, 6:19 PM EST
By Rebecca Shabad
WASHINGTON — The House adopted a war powers resolution Thursday with the aim of limiting President Donald Trump's military actions against Iran.
The adoption of the measure on a largely party-line vote of 224-194 came amid heightened tension between the two countries after the United States killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Iran retaliated with a ballistic missile attack against Iraqi air bases housing U.S. forces.
Republicans Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Matt Gaetz and Francis Rooney, both of Florida, voted for the measure, while eight Democrats voted against it: Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Ben McAdams of Utah, Stephanie Murphy of Florida and Anthony Brindisi and Max Rose, both of New York.
Before the vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., criticized the U.S. drone attack on Soleimani, saying the resolution would send a clear statement that Trump shouldn't take further military action against Iran without approval from Congress.
"Last week, in our view, the administration conducted a provocative disproportionate airstrike against Iran which endangered Americans, and did so without consulting Congress," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference.
Asked whether the Trump administration misled the public in justifying the airstrike, Pelosi said that while she can't share the classified information that she has been briefed on, "I do not believe in terms of what is in the public domain that they have made the country safer by what they did."
Pelosi said that when Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed her on the airstrike over the weekend, they were "disdainful in terms of not consulting Congress" and "dismissive."
The president, asked Thursday whether congressional authorization was needed for further military action against Iran, said, "You don't have to," pointing to a need to "make split-second decisions."
Still, he said, "in certain cases, I wouldn't even mind doing it."
The five-page resolution, sponsored by freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., a former CIA analyst, emphasizes that if the president wants to take the United States to war, he or she must get authorization from Congress.
Specifically, it directs the president to terminate the use of U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities against Iran unless Congress has declared war or enacted a specific authorization or unless military action is necessary to defend against an imminent attack.
The legislation also says that Iran's government is a lead state sponsor of terrorism and that Soleimani was the "lead architect" of destabilizing activities around the world. It further says the United States has an "inherent right to self-defense against imminent armed attacks" and "maintains the right to ensure the safety of diplomatic personnel serving abroad."
The White House denounced the resolution later Thursday as "misguided."
"The President has the right and duty to protect this nation and our citizens from terrorism. That's what he continues to do, and the world is safer for it," spokesman Hogan Gidley said in a statement. "This House resolution tries to undermine the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to prevent terrorist activity by Iran and its proxies, and attempts to hinder the President's authority to protect America and our interests in the region from the continued threats."
Binding or not?
Although Pelosi said the measure has "real teeth" because it is a concurrent resolution, it wouldn't have to go to the president's desk for his signature, leading GOP lawmakers to assert that it would be legally nonbinding.
"This is a statement of the Congress of the United States. I will not have that statement diminished by having the president veto it or not," Pelosi said.
A senior Democratic aide noted that the War Powers Act sets out a clear process for the House legislation. The law says "forces shall be removed by the president if Congress so directs by concurrent resolution."
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., countered the notion Thursday, saying, "This resolution has as much force of law as a New Year's resolution."
At his weekly news conference earlier Thursday, McCarthy said, "This is a meaningless vote that only sends the wrong message that the House Democrats would rather stand with the socialist base than stand against Iran."
Because the resolution is privileged, the Senate could be forced to vote on it or a similar resolution that has been introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.
Trump urged GOP members Thursday morning to oppose the measure. "Hope that all House Republicans will vote against Crazy Nancy Pelosi's War Powers Resolution ... " he tweeted.
The Defense Department said that the strike on Soleimani was "aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans" and that he had been actively developing plans to attack U.S. diplomatic and service members in Iraq and in other parts of the region.
Democrats have demanded that the administration share the intelligence backing that assertion. Many of them left classified briefings by top administration officials on Capitol Hill on Wednesday saying they were dissatisfied with the information presented that Soleimani posed an immediate threat or that the administration had the proper legal justification to target him.
After the strike, Democrats said they were worried that it would spark a war with Iran, which they said could be declared only by Congress. Top officials have said they based the strike on the 2002 authorization for the use of military force that Congress passed to authorize the war against Iraq when it was led by Saddam Hussein.
Iran retaliated Tuesday when it launched a dozen ballistic missiles from Iran targeting Iraq air bases housing U.S. forces. Trump announced Wednesday morning that Iran appeared to be "standing down."
Two GOP senators — Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah — left the Senate briefing Wednesday echoing Democrats' frustration with the explanation for targeting Soleimani. Lee said, "It was probably the worst briefing I've seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I've served in the United States Senate."
Trump said Thursday that Lee and Paul had "wanted information that is very hard to get" because the military needed to protect sources. "I get along great with Mike Lee, I've never seen him like that," he said, adding that "other people have called and said it was the greatest presentation."
Pelosi said the House would soon consider another proposal from Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., which would repeal the 2002 use of force authorization.
"It needs to be addressed, it needs to be rewritten ... specific to the danger that we are facing," she said.
Rebecca Shabad
Rebecca Shabad is a congressional reporter for NBC News, based in Washington.
Adam Edelman and Alex Moe contributed.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Contractor whose death Trump cited was a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Iraq
Contractor whose death Trump cited was a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Iraq
Aaron Davis Tuesday,1/7/2020
Article Link
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/contractor-whose-death-trump-cited-was-a-naturalized-us-citizen-born-in-iraq/ar-BBYIWiO?li=BBnb7Kz
Here is the gist of the article:
Quoted Excerpt:
An American defense contractor whose death late last month was cited by President Trump amid escalating violence with Iran was identified Tuesday as an interpreter who was born in Iraq and lived in Sacramento.
Nawres Hamid, 33, became a naturalized citizen in 2017, according to his widow. He was the father of two boys, ages 2 and 8, she said.
Hamid was killed on Dec. 27 when U.S. authorities say an Iranian-backed militia fired rockets at a military base near the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk.
The attack, which injured several coalition troops, prompted Trump to order missile strikes against Iraqi militias. That in turn led to a New Year’s Eve assault on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and a retaliatory strike by the United States that killed Qasem Soleimani, a top Iranian military commander.
Hamid’s death has been a rallying cry for Trump. In a tweet on Dec. 31, Trump wrote: “Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified!”
Hamid’s body was returned to the United States and buried Saturday in Sacramento, his widow, Noor Alkhalili, said in a text-message exchange with The Washington Post on Tuesday.
Monday, January 6, 2020
Congress demands answers from Trump about Soleimani killing
Monday, January 6, 2020
Congress demands answers from Trump about Soleimani killing
Quoted Excerpts:
Pompeo defended the targeted killing of Soleimani, saying the administration would have been “culpably negligent” in its duty to protect the United States if it had not killed him.
He did not provide evidence for his previous claims that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on Americans. Instead of arguing that an attack had been imminent, Pompeo said it was inevitable.
Trump made clear Sunday that he saw little reason to give Congress advanced warning if he orders the military to carry out further actions against Iran.
Link To Article
Link To https://whdh.com/Channel seven news reported that the general had been carrying a letter to deescalate tensions between Iran and the USA.
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Iran Abandons Nuclear Deal as Killing of Iranian General Upends Mideast
My Comments and my opinions:
According to what I heard on the Sunday,1/5/2020 news's there was/is no evidence that general was planning anything against the USA.
In my opinion the Mideast on the whole will continue to be violent.
Iran Abandons Nuclear Deal as Killing of Iranian General Upends Mideast
Ben Hubbard, Alissa J. Rubin, Farnaz Fassihi and Steven Erlanger Sunday, 1/5/2020
Quoted Excerpts:
American allies have largely kept quiet so as not top put themselves in the line of fire.
At the same time, no European government praised the killing of General Suleimani, emphasizing instead the increased risks to their citizens, troops and interests.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain was reported to be angry with Mr. Trump for not informing him or other allies with troops in Iraq about the decision to kill General Suleimani. While carried out by the Americans, the killing is seen as having put all European citizens and troops in Iraq and the wider region at heightened risk.
Mr. Johnson, who was said to be returning early from a vacation in the Caribbean, is expected to discuss the issues with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Emmanuel Macron of France and Mr. Trump in the next few days, a Downing Street spokeswoman said.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo complained that the response by European allies had not been “helpful.” He told Fox News in an interview: “Frankly, the Europeans haven’t been as helpful as I wish that they could be. The Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did, what the Americans did, saved lives in Europe as well.”
Article Link https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-abandons-nuclear-deal-as-killing-of-iranian-general-upends-mideast/ar-BBYDdpd?li=BBnb7Kz
Ben Hubbard, Alissa J. Rubin, Farnaz Fassihi and Steven Erlanger Sunday, 1/5/2020
Quoted Excerpts:
American allies have largely kept quiet so as not top put themselves in the line of fire.
At the same time, no European government praised the killing of General Suleimani, emphasizing instead the increased risks to their citizens, troops and interests.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain was reported to be angry with Mr. Trump for not informing him or other allies with troops in Iraq about the decision to kill General Suleimani. While carried out by the Americans, the killing is seen as having put all European citizens and troops in Iraq and the wider region at heightened risk.
Mr. Johnson, who was said to be returning early from a vacation in the Caribbean, is expected to discuss the issues with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Emmanuel Macron of France and Mr. Trump in the next few days, a Downing Street spokeswoman said.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo complained that the response by European allies had not been “helpful.” He told Fox News in an interview: “Frankly, the Europeans haven’t been as helpful as I wish that they could be. The Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did, what the Americans did, saved lives in Europe as well.”
Friday, December 20, 2019
My Opinions Regarding The House Impeaching Donald Trump
My Opinions regarding the House impeaching Donald Trump He's been allowed to be above the law for too many years.
On Wednesday evening(Dec.18,2019) Trump's House impeachment was televised.
I listened to the Republican's words.
They refused to acknowledge that Donald Trump did violate the Constitution.
They do not want to acknowledge the evidence.
Because they have the voting numbers taking Trump's trial to the Senate will most likely result in Republicans voting against impeachment-for what Donald Trump really did get caught doing.
Trump really did Abuse his powers and obstruct justice.
I do not know why the Republicans will not be honest with themselves and America.
I do know that unqualified, unfit for the job; Trump will continuing being allowed to be above he law.
If elected for a second term Trump will continue making America worse.
Donald Trump will also continue breaking laws and violating ethics. ______________________________________________________________________
Note: In my opinion-this is how it looks and sounds to me:
In a nutshell this is just one brief example of Trump and his administration:
1.
Trump abused his powers by his attempted actions with Ukraine.
Trump would give them the approved money if they would investigate Presidential Candidate Joe Biden's son Hunter and Hunter's business dealings involving or with a company. Trump's goal was to include using Ukraine for the purpose of Trump having a strong chance at wining the 2020 Election.
Without Trump Congress made sure that Ukraine received that money.
Note:
I think that President Obama had concerns regarding his VP's son- Hunter Biden's business dealings.
I was not following what decisions President Obama made regarding Ukraine.
2.
The obstruction of justice includes, but is not limited to Trump attempting to withhold evidence that could prove that Trump and/or his administration violated laws and/or ethics.
Some Republicans, Trump and his administration were attempting to alter the evidence and make the proof of what Trump did become non-existent.
In another nutshell, it appears that Trump is a traitor to the USA.
Donald Trump's actions are worse than Nixon's Watergate.Trump has a history of being allowed to be above the law.
My Opinions And Quoted Excerpts FromThe Article Former White House officials say they feared Putin influenced the president’s views on Ukraine and 2016 campaign
National Security
Former White House officials say they feared Putin influenced the president’s views on Ukraine and 2016 campaign
By Shane Harris, Josh Dawsey and Carol D. Leonnig
Thursday, Dec. 19, 2019 at 5:09 p.m. EST
Article Link https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/former-white-house-officials-say-they-feared-putin-influenced-the-presidents-views-on-ukraine-and-2016-campaign/2019/12/19/af0fdbf6-20e9-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html
Link To https://www.washingtonpost.com/
My Opinions:
The article reads like a repeat of how Trump thinks.
The article adds that Trump did get some of his information and thoughts from Twitter.
Social media is not a informative-news resource.
Then there's a repeat look of Trump's feelings, his views, his obsession's, his thoughts and his not letting go of Election 2016.
In the past, Trump has stated that he did win the election.
______________________________________________________________
National Security
Former White House officials say they feared Putin influenced the president’s views on Ukraine and 2016 campaign
By Shane Harris, Josh Dawsey and Carol D. Leonnig
Thursday, Dec. 19, 2019 at 5:09 p.m. EST
Article Link https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/former-white-house-officials-say-they-feared-putin-influenced-the-presidents-views-on-ukraine-and-2016-campaign/2019/12/19/af0fdbf6-20e9-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html
Link To https://www.washingtonpost.com/
Several Quoted Excerpts:
Almost from the moment he took office, President Trump seized on a theory that troubled his senior aides: Ukraine, he told them on many occasions, had tried to stop him from winning the White House.
After meeting privately in July 2017 with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Trump grew more insistent that Ukraine worked to defeat him, according to multiple former officials familiar with his assertions.
The president’s intense resistance to the assessment of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia systematically interfered in the 2016 campaign — and the blame he cast instead on a rival country — led many of his advisers to think that Putin himself helped spur the idea of Ukraine’s culpability, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions.
One former senior White House official said Trump even stated so explicitly at one point, saying he knew Ukraine was the real culprit because “Putin told me.”
Allegations about Ukraine’s role in the 2016 race have been promoted by an array of figures, including right-wing journalists whose work the president avidly consumes, as well as Rudolph W. Giuliani, his personal lawyer. But U.S. intelligence officials told lawmakers and their staff members this past fall that Russian security services played a major role in spreading false claims of Ukrainian complicity, said people familiar with the assessments.
The concern among senior White House officials that Putin helped fuel Trump’s theories about Ukraine underscores long-standing fears inside the administration about the Russian president’s ability to influence Trump’s views.
This article is based on interviews with 15 former administration and government officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to offer their candid views about the president.
Trump, the official said, offered no proof to support his theory of Ukraine’s involvement.
It is unclear where Trump first got the idea of a Ukrainian connection to CrowdStrike. At the time, the notion was not yet being widely discussed on Twitter, his social media platform of choice and a fertile bed for disinformation, according to social media experts.
Trump has returned to the false Ukraine-CrowdStrike connection many times, arguing that the company had covered up Ukraine’s hacking of the DNC and that it had even spirited the DNC server to Ukraine, former White House officials said.
Privately, officials tried in vain to convince the president that CrowdStrike was not a Ukrainian company and that it would be impossible for the server to be located there, a former administration official said.
One of the officials who Hill said tried to convince Trump, former homeland security adviser Thomas P. Bossert, publicly pleaded with the White House in September to drop the Ukraine theory, which he called “completely debunked.”
Bossert pointed to Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, as a persistent source of the server claim. “I am deeply frustrated with what [Giuliani] and the legal team is doing in repeating that debunked theory to the president. It sticks in his mind when he hears it over and over again.”
An early coolness
Trump’s suspicions about Ukraine manifested in other ways. Early in the administration, then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was eager to secure a White House meeting with Trump — ideally before he met publicly with Putin — to demonstrate U.S. commitment to defending Ukraine against Russia.
But Trump resisted the meeting, according to former U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the matter. White House aides were confused: Ukraine was an ally in a war against a country that had just undermined the U.S. elections. Meeting with Poroshenko was a “no-brainer,” one former official said. “It was utterly mystifying to us why Trump wouldn’t agree.”
Another former official said it was clear from the beginning of Trump’s presidency that he wanted to improve relations with Russia and form a bond with Putin.
Kelly tried to get U.S. experts to speak to Trump before his scheduled calls with the Russian president to push back on some of Trump’s misconceptions, the official said.
Some wondered whether Trump’s coolness toward Ukraine was intended not to offend Putin.
Poroshenko came to the White House on June 20, 2017, to meet with Vice President Pence. Trump had a short “drop-in” with the Ukrainian leader, allaying some U.S. officials’ concerns that he wouldn’t bother to say hello.
A private meeting
At the time, U.S. and Russian officials didn’t disclose the conversation. During the meal, Trump left his chair and sat next to Putin. Trump went alone, and Putin was assisted by his interpreter.
For some White House officials struggling to understand Trump’s obsession with Ukraine, the Hamburg meetings were a turning point.
Three former senior administration officials said Trump repeatedly insisted after the G-20 summit that he believed Putin’s assurances that Russia had not interfered in the 2016 campaign. The officials said Kelly, national security adviser H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson all tried to caution Trump not to rely on Putin’s word, and to focus on evidence to the contrary that U.S. intelligence agencies had collected.
Trump repeatedly told one senior official that the Russian president said Ukraine sought to undermine him, the official said.
There was no evidence that Putin pushed the Ukraine theory with Trump in their official phone calls and meetings, which were witnessed by interpreters and aides, several former administration officials said.
However, White House aides were not part of Trump’s private conversation with Putin in Hamburg, or a later meeting he had in Helsinki for two hours with the Russian president, when they were accompanied by only their interpreters.
Trump also took steps to conceal the details of his formal meeting with Putin in Hamburg, taking the notes away from his interpreter and instructing her not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, The Post reported earlier this year.
In the wake of Hamburg, top leaders were dispatched to try to convince him that Russia interfered in the campaign. On different occasions, Kelly asked Bossert, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and his principal deputy, Sue Gordon, to brief the president on the intelligence community’s Russia assessment, said former officials with knowledge of the briefings.
They did not convince him.
A year after Trump met Putin in Hamburg, they reconvened at a summit in Helsinki. After his one-on-one with the Russian president, Trump expressed doubt that the Kremlin interfered in the campaign.
“My people came to me, Daniel Coats came to me and some others, they said they think it’s Russia,” Trump said at a joint news conference, standing beside the Russian leader. “I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server.”
Intelligence officials were stunned that Trump would publicly side with Putin over his own advisers. His comments also revealed that he still clung to his suspicions about Ukraine.
“I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but I don’t think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server,” Trump said.
The narrative takes hold
In her public testimony in the impeachment proceedings, Hill, the NSC’s former Russia director, admonished lawmakers not to take the Kremlin’s bait.
“Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country — and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did,” she said. “This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.”
Hill implored the lawmakers not to help Russia’s campaign. “In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.”
Last month, RT rejected the idea that Russia had promoted such a narrative, noting that Putin said in July that he did not think the actions of wealthy individuals in that country amounted to “interference by Ukraine.”
More recently, however, the Russian president has expressed satisfaction in the new focus on Ukraine.
“Thank God no one is accusing us of interfering in the U.S. elections anymore; now they’re accusing Ukraine,” the Russian president said at a news conference in Moscow in November. “Well, let them sort this out among themselves.”
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Blog Post Of Quick Chatting
Blog Post Of Quick Chatting
Day to day chit chat and small talk. Light hearted or serious.
Chatting about what you do when you have the free time or the spare time. Chatting about your day, your evening, your weekend or your week.
Salutations: Hello, good morning, good afternoon, good evening and other small talk.
Chatting about what you do when you have the free time or the spare time. Chatting about your day, your evening, your weekend or your week.
Salutations: Hello, good morning, good afternoon, good evening and other small talk.
Thursday, December 5,2019
Welcome to my blog: Not Much.On occasions I will post an article, quoted excerpts from an article, occasional quick chatting/random chatting or something else.
Good Morning.
So far this morning all I have done was to bring up today's morning newspaper.
As today moves forward more will get done.
Blog Post Updated on Thursday,12/5/2019 At 9:39AM.
I listened to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's brief televised announcement.
As of this writing/typing I will leave out my opinions.
U.S. House to draft impeachment charges against Trump - Pelosi
Thursday, December 5,2019
Article Link https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pelosi-house-will-move-forward-on-impeachment/ar-BBXN6mp?li=BBnb7Kz
Politics December 5, 2019 / 9:19 AM / Updated 6 minutes ago
U.S. House to draft impeachment charges against Trump: Pelosi
Link To https://www.reuters.com/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)