Top NIH Official Advised Covid Scientists That He Uses Personal Email To Evade FOIA (theintercept.com) 129
A top adviser to Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes of Health admitted that he used a personal email account in an apparent effort to evade the strictures of the Freedom of Information Act, according to records obtained by congressional investigators probing the origin of Covid-19. The official also expressed his intention to delete emails in order to avoid media scrutiny. The Intercept: "As you know, I try to always communicate on gmail because my NIH email is FOIA'd constantly," wrote David M. Morens, a high-ranking NIH official, in a September 2021 email, one of a series of email exchanges that included many leading scientists involved in the bitter Covid origins debate. "Stuff sent to my gmail gets to my phone," he added, "but not my NIH computer." After noting that his Gmail account had been hacked, however, he wrote to the group to say that he might have to use his NIH email account to communicate with them instead. "Don't worry," he wrote, "just send to any of my addresses, and I will delete anything I don't want to see in the New York Times."
Why use gmail? (Score:4, Funny)
He could easily have avoided all this by using Hunter’s laptop and Hillary’s email server.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Why work for the clinton crime syndicate? (Score:2)
Have you ever seen an email from Hillary's server? See, that's why it's so secure.
Re:Why work for the clinton crime syndicate? (Score:4, Insightful)
it was shot down by corruption within the FBI and DOJ
Ah yes, that infernal corruption. That same corruption [imgur.com] which has been weaponized to prosecute someone who stole classified documents, who lied about not having the classified documents, who said he had every right to those classified documents, and who has been caught on tape (apparently) showing those classified documents he didn't have to people who didn't have the appropriate security clearance.
I'm sure it is going to just keep on coming too.
Sure they will. Right after they find all those witnesses [esquire.com] who have mysteriously disappeared [newsmax.com].
You will note the abject hilarity of Republicans claiming there was some kind of quid pro quo decades ago and how it's a serious crime, yet deliberately, and with malice, turned a blind eye to quid pro quo during the con artist's regime when there was absolute evidence he did just that [yahoo.com].
Re:Why work for the clinton crime syndicate? (Score:4, Informative)
What are you talking about? Nothing about Hunter's laptop or Hillary's email was shot down by a judge, it was shot down by corruption within the FBI and DOJ which is why congress is having to do the digging the hard way and while they haven't officially finished and presented the result tied up with a bow they've certainly been finding dirt.
Multiple news outlets had access to the contents of the laptop in question, and they all said the same thing — that nothing implicated the elder Biden. But sure, keep pretending if it helps you sleep at night.
Elon bought Twitter because he believed there was dirt and sure enough, there was dirt.
Twitter is, for the most part, public. If there were dirt, you'd be able to find it in a Google search. I suspect that Elon Musk bought Twitter in part to unban Donald Trump and in part because he wrongly believed that there is a vast left-wing conspiracy among the tech industry to hide the "truth" from the political right, and that after he reshaped Twitter to eliminate most moderation, everyone would flock to the platform. Unfortunately, he didn't realize just how badly a lack of moderation would work out.
I'm going to assume the best of intentions, and assume that, like a lot of very smart people who haven't worked in the industry, he simply didn't realize how utterly sh*tty people are, and how much moderation is needed just to keep popular sites from descending into absolute chaos. But man, what a mess.
Hillary was never found innocent of wrongdoing by anyone. The director of the FBI said, "well, she's guilty but we wouldn't be able to make charges stick."
Nope. That's not even close to what he said [fbi.gov]. He said, "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."
"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
Maybe try getting your news from a reputable source that doesn't slant the news so much?
Apparently the money trail is rather complicated and they want more time to unravel it before impeachment, if they don't impeach him over his border policies first. But it is coming and unlike the last guy it is coming for actual valid cause and corruption.
The Republican-led House Oversight Committee investigated the laptop and found no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden [nytimes.com]. When even the Republicans conclude that your conspiracy theory is full of it, you're probably getting your news from a Russian troll farm.
I'll tell you a secret. Joe Biden has never had a private sector job and it is nearly impossible for him to now be multi-millionaire on his public sector salary.
I'll tell you a secret. The stock market lets you turn tiny amounts of money into bigger amounts
Re: (Score:2)
"Multiple news outlets had access to the contents of the laptop in question, and they all said the same thing — that nothing implicated the elder Biden."
You mean the big guy? Those emails referencing 'the big guy' definitely implicate the elder Biden. Unless you are a sort who pretends nothing was said about marijuana on a call where one party asks the other to bring a 1/4 oz of flowers over in exchange for $100. The identity of the 'big guy' has now been corroborated by other parties on those emails.
Re: (Score:2)
"Multiple news outlets had access to the contents of the laptop in question, and they all said the same thing — that nothing implicated the elder Biden."
You mean the big guy? Those emails referencing 'the big guy' definitely implicate the elder Biden
Those specific emails weren't about anything illegal, so no, they don't.
"Twitter is, for the most part, public. If there were dirt, you'd be able to find it in a Google search."
Has your head been in the sand? You haven't seen the "Twitter Files" internal communications released by Elon Musk? There is nothing public about Twitter internal communications and soft bans.
Ah, then this is a terminology issue. When you said he assumed there was dirt, most people would read that to mean that he assumed Twitter somehow had dirt on someone, not that Twitter was doing something wrong. After all, why would he buy the company to dig up dirt on the way Twitter is run, when once he runs the company, he can simply change how it is run?
So basically what you meant was exactly what I said — that be believed t
Re: (Score:2)
Are you looking at your own sources? These are all left wing propoganda sites. You literally just linked wikipedia and the new york times FFS.
"The Bidens eared a whopping $15 million from public speaking engagements during the four years when Trump was in office."
Those are called bribes my friend. You've just made the point. If he invested soundly he'd have perhaps $2-3million and you've just identified he laundered bribes through speaking engagements.
Re: (Score:2)
"'She ran a private server explicitly to illegally bypass disclosure and records retention requirements and then when caught she ordered the evidence secure shredded!'
"Didn't happen. See the statement from the FBI director above about lack of evidence of intent. If anything like that had actually happened, that would be airtight evidence of intent."
Let's see what left-wing legacy media outlet abc reported:
"They had nothing to do with work," Clinton added. "I didn't see any reason to keep them ... no one wan
Re: (Score:2)
The reason it was never charged is because Trump took the high road, something that Biden appears completely incapable of doing.
FYI, in the USA the president doesn't decide who gets prosecuted. Righties are either projecting, or else don't know how the system works.
I'm guessing it's projection. Note that Trump promised to investigate Clinton, and has recently promised to investigate Biden if he gets elected again.
Re: Why work for the clinton crime syndicate? (Score:2)
Please share how the system works
Re: (Score:2)
Was reading the other day about how the Founders considered how the Attorney General gets appointed. There was a large faction that wanted him (back then it was unthinkable that a women could be Attorney General) appointed by the Senate in the same way as Judges are appointed, though for a limited term, 6 years IIRC. The compromise was the President appointing him, but the Attorney General not being part of cabinet and not taking orders from the President.
Basically the Attorney General is supposed to be ind
Re: (Score:2)
Seems a 4th independent branch would be the best, but it would get politicized too, look at how Congress and the President work together, especially noticeable during the Trump Presidency, where he basically ignored Congress and his party went along with it. The Judiciary has also become very politicized too, as well as ignoring things like ethics. Judges used to get appointed with close to 100% Senate support.
The Founders didn't expect democracy, in the sense of one person, one vote, to take over and also
Re: (Score:2)
"[TFG] took the high road"
Don't go to Russia with whatever you're smoking.
The James Bond Villain? (Score:2)
Those are too close to Largo's pool. [cnn.com]
For a minute, I thought you were talking about Emilio Largo's swimming pool [duckduckgo.com].
You meant "Lago" (not LaRgo), as in "Mar-a-Lago" [wikipedia.org], and I think truncating it is grammatically incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
I will delete anything I don't want to see... (Score:3)
... in the NYT
I guess he was overly cautious. The NYT is not reporting this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal here... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a left-leaning independent, and think the natural-origin explanation is the obviously correct one.
But this guy should be fired immediately. You don't skirt FOIA. Dude doesn't understand that FOI and transparency are core small-d democratic values. He's no patriot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Liberal here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then we elect the roaches and they change the definition of sunlight and vilify it until everyone with about 3 brain cells demands that we do something about this evil sunlight illuminating things these poor, disadvantaged roaches want to keep hidden.
Won't someone please think of the rich... I mean roaches?
Re: Liberal here... (Score:2)
Or, uh...just fire the guy. He's not an elected official.
Re: (Score:3)
Whereas whether you think it was right to vaccinate people or not ( it was ) *is* relevant here.
And yes, he did wrong.
Re: Liberal here... (Score:2)
It has bearing on why the employee decided to try to skirt FOIA.
Basically I agree with the man's position, but he should be fired for his flagrantly wrong actions.
i.e. in laying out my politics, I'm pointing out that I'm not about firing him b/c he's on the "other side" or something.
That "other side" shit is the second-dumbest thing that's happened to American political life since I began walking the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, okay, we think "origins" is what the email discussion ( and consequent private email use ) was about. I didn't get that.
"Basically I agree with the man's position, but he should be fired for his flagrantly wrong actions.
i.e. in laying out my politics, I'm pointing out that I'm not about firing him b/c he's on the "other side" or something."
That I got. And I happen to agree with you.
"That "other side" shit is the second-dumbest thing that'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, not a swamp to be drained so much as a pustule. But that's been the case for every part of government for a long, long time.
Re:Liberal here... (Score:5, Interesting)
"think the natural-origin explanation is the obviously correct one"
Why? There is no evidence to support it beyond the absence of evidence of genetic manipulation and there are methods of biological engineering which don't typically leave those traces. Methods which are known to have been employed in research at the lab in question. The lab in question has staffing problems, training problems, and objective containment problems reported on inspections and was doing enhanced function research on this very family of viruses. People at the lab began getting sick with similar symptoms before it hit the market. The spread and illness pattern within the market wasn't consistent with natural origin either.
There is no smoking gun either way but probability definitely favors an accidental lab leak from the leaky lab vs the virus just happening to jump to humans right next to lab performing research that pressures it to mutate to humans and to do so during the window of time they were performing that research. It acts like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it could be a goose with a cold as you say but me; I'm leaning toward it being a duck.
Re: (Score:2)
The spread and illness pattern within the market wasn't consistent with natural origin either.
It wasn't?
Re: (Score:2)
No, Lineage A is closer to the bat variant than Lineage B but Lineage B is the predominant variant found at the market. This is more consistent with an early superspreader event at the market rather than a zoonotic origin event. The best case for zoonotic is that two animals were the source at the market and the shift from A to B occurred before infecting the first human. There were no infected animals found at the market, if two animals containing the virus were responsible for transference you'd expect to
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a left-leaning independent, and think the natural-origin explanation is the obviously correct one.
The fact that you think those two things are related is a serious problem. Science doesn't have a political party.
Embarassed (Score:4, Insightful)
Many in the Slashdot crowd have been very vocal about the origins of Covid-19. It's embarrassing. This is supposed to be a place for those who are more scientifically minded.
There is a lot of questionable data gathered via questionable means that can not be reproduced or verified. This happened in China. Then the Chinese government immediately locked everyone out. Anyone with any credibility can only say: We don't know where it came from. You don't have access to all the unadulterated samples and documents from inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Those data are Chinese state secret, and sharing them is a crime.
Likewise with the drug companies. Johnson & Johnson was happy to knowingly kill large numbers of Americans selling their Opioids. They clearly valued billions in drug sales over human lives. The feel bad after being sued by state attorney generals. The others are no better when tempted by 100 billion dollar jackpots. You can't trust what these companies say about their Covid-19 drugs. That doesn't mean their drugs are dangerous. It means you only know after a completely independent interest (preferably more that one, and working independently) conducts short term and long term controlled trials. Vocally stating the drugs are safe or the drugs are dangerous only shows that God has told you so or you have "beliefs" instead of objective knowledge.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not true, we can also say that the first three C19 cases that we can reliably trace were members of the WIV, and that the primary CCP military liaison at the WIV 'accidentally' fell off the roof 6 months later.
Re: (Score:2)
INFO WARS DOT COM
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, are you attempting(poorly) to insinuate that the first 3 cases that we can reliably trace as being C19 positive weren't from the WIV? Or the Zhou Yusan, member of the PLA working at the WIV as their liaison and first person to submit a patent for a C19 vaccine in China, didn't die in late May/early June 2020 with nary a peep from anyone not even an obituary, rather strange given his status as a lauded PLA scientist, and only his team making any note of it a year later in a tribute in a scientific
Re: (Score:2)
The very first case was a seafood vendor in the market.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/1... [nytimes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The first case, as per information given to the researchers by... the CCP. The same CCP that hasn't allowed any actual investigation inside China to occur. Much likelihood of truth telling on their part.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, they investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing. Who are you to challenge the honesty and openness of a government that protects their citizens from ever talking about the May 35th Incident?
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, an *American* *scientist* tracked it down to the market vendor. He wrote a very nice paper on it for Science:
https://www.science.org/doi/10... [science.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, the CCP reported the first case as an accountant, but later Michael Worobey wrote this paper for Science:
https://www.science.org/doi/10... [science.org]
I suggest you read it. He tracked down patient zero to the Wuhan market vendor. He is American and from Arizona, not CCP.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that paper was based entirely on information given out by... the CCP. Making it worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Sources? Put up or shut up.
Re: (Score:2)
Not according to the NY Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/1... [nytimes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
It does when you consider that the BLS4 lab in question used a laser cold welding technique for their entirely stainless steel BLS4 containment system, which was not the system used in the blueprints that the French gave them(The French used a lot of a specific type of glue as a sealant.in any joints). And that several months after C!9 appeared a patent was filed in China for a BLS4 lab grade disinfectant that... checks notes... didn't corrode stainless steel. Which means that there was enough corrosion of
Re: Embarassed (Score:2, Insightful)
Well since the previous SARS virus had a reservoir in bats, and because bats are natural reservoirs for other well-known virii (think Marburg, Ebola, a host of coronavirii...), there'd have to be a pretty strong, well-documented and surprising reason to think that the SARS-CoV2 virus (79% genetic similarity to SARS) has a different origin.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Re: Embarassed (Score:4, Insightful)
Well since the previous SARS virus had a reservoir in bats, and because bats are natural reservoirs for other well-known virii (think Marburg, Ebola, a host of coronavirii...), there'd have to be a pretty strong, well-documented and surprising reason to think that the SARS-CoV2 virus (79% genetic similarity to SARS) has a different origin.
A purely inductive argument.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
There is nothing extraordinary about the notion of lab leaks which happen with regularity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
At this point despite extraordinary efforts there is still no affirmative evidence of natural origin. Despite all efforts no precursor virus has been found, no evidence of pre-existing animal reservoirs nor evidence of human adaption. SARS2 was both instantly able to cause serious infections in humans and instantly highly infectious.
What is known for a fact about WIV is that China has intentionally stonewalled multiple international investigations and covered up critical data.
Regardless of which narrative you believe to be more likely there is nothing extraordinary about the difference in supporting evidence base between them.
Re: (Score:2)
The lab in question worked on bat coronaviruses. And had a sample of the closest link in question collected in 2013.
Re:Embarassed (Score:4, Insightful)
Reminder: The concept of super-delayed side effects is medically nonsensical. Over 2/3rds of Earth's population has been vaccinated against COVID19, for over a year at this point. The safety of those vaccines has now been proven not only through initial testing before public use, but through planetary-scale practical experiment. Deal with it.
The first person known to have been infected with COVID19 was a woman working at the Wuhan wet market.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not according to multiple members of the US security services. The first 3 cases were employees of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Re: Embarassed (Score:3)
"The US Security Services"? Who are they?
Are they related to the National Intelligence Agency? Or maybe the Special Intelligence Directorate? What about S.H.I.E.L.D.?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's the agency Q works at.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Embarassed (Score:2)
Dude, the only water I carry is for sanity, which you're unlikely to hear in DC, on Fox, CNN, wingnut radio, MS-NBC, or here, for that matter, never mind the spare bedroom "news" outlets that don't deserve a mention.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Reminder: The concept of super-delayed side effects is medically nonsensical."
Where did you get that idea?
There are all kinds of things that can show up much later in life after exposure. Or something that causes damage but not enough to detect yet, or that combined with something else later causes issues. Or something that could later trigger an auto-immune issue with enough repeat exposure to that or something else.
I will agree that the VAST majority of side-effects of drugs usually happen immediat
You're trusting data from China - always a mistake (Score:2)
'The first person known to have been infected with COVID19 was a woman working at the Wuhan wet market.'
Really? How do we know that? What we KNOW is the Chinese government blocked independent investigation of the early data about the disease. This doesn't prove it didn't come from the Wuhan wet market. It merely renders any conclusions about the origin uncertain.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminder: The concept of super-delayed side effects is medically nonsensical.
Tell that to all the people suffering from Parkinson's due to being exposed to Agent Orange 60 years prior.
Re: (Score:2)
The really worrying thing is that most countries would probably have tried to cover it up to some extent. That's why they changed from naming variants after where they were discovered, to Greek letters.
The next time this happens, wherever it starts the government will be keen to identify the source as somewhere else.
I also worry that we leaned little from COVID, in terms of how you respond to a pandemic.
What a luddite... (Score:2)
Only dinosaurs think things can be deleted and permanently discarded.
corruption, plain and simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He was aware the entire time that he was violating federal records keeping policies. I hope they throw the book at him!
That he would so brazenly admit he wanted to evade FIA requirements is astounding. I'm surprised he was allowed to get away with it for any length of time. I know if I tried to conduct work business through gmail, I'd get a stern talking to. Our mandatory annual information security training explicitly forbids us from using our personal email accounts for any work emails.
Re: (Score:2)
He will get away with it. (Score:2)
This is exactly what was wrong with Hillary Clinton and her private email servers, AND James Comey's public statement on it in the summer of 2016 in which he, as FBI director, listed her crimes (including this) and then announced “Our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” AND the cowardly Republican establishment refusal to take any actual actions in the case other than use it for political agitation of their base voters.
During the Obama years, when Hillary was Sec
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly what was wrong with Hillary Clinton and her private email servers, AND James Comey's public statement on it in the summer of 2016 in which he, as FBI director, listed her crimes (including this) and then announced âoeOur judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.â AND the cowardly Republican establishment refusal to take any actual actions in the case other than use it for political agitation of their base voters.
The "cowardly" Republican establishment was actually "hypocritical". They do the same thing. This doesn't mean it wasn't wrong for Clinton to do it — in fact, it was wrong — but it does mean that they agree that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case".
Why mention Fauci except for the clicks? (Score:3)
This is a story about David M. Morens. This is not a story in any substantive way about Dr. Anthony Fauci, nor of any wrongdoing by him.
I'll ask, why is the Intercept writing these not-related-but-trying-to-relate-them issues? Is it the clicks? 'cause it isn't the content.
And why is this on ./?
Re:Why mention Fauci except for the clicks? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, he *is* the senior advisor to Fauci Fauci's role as director of NIAID. That said, most of his communications in that role would be, according to recent rulings by the conservative majority of SCOTUS, subject to the "deliberative privilege" exception in the FOIA statute.
So FOIA couldn't have forced him disgorge the really juicy stuff the anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers really want to get their hands on. But if there *are* emails that are subject to FOIA and are *not* privileged, he would still have to provide them even if they were on Gmail. Changing the location of a public record doesn't alter its public nature.
I can see how someone would figure, "most of my email is privileged so I'll just use my private email and it'll never come up." Except of course, it will, and the fact that they're on Gmail doesn't change anything. If your emails are FOIA'd you're going to have to go through all the servers where you keep them, public or private, to figure out which ones are responsive but not privileged.
This is far from the first time a public official got caught using private email for public business -- for example Alberto Gonzales' dismissal of US Attorneys back in 2006, managing the whole thing on RNC email servers. The DNC sued for acces under FOIA but the DC district court ruled against them, not because the emails happened to be on a private server, but under the deliberative privilege exemption.
This comes up over and over again, with both Democratic and Republican adminsitrations. AFAIK it's legal to use personal email for government business unless you are or work directly for the President. There are legitimate and illegitimate reasons for doing this, but it will always look bad.
Re: (Score:2)
This comes up over and over again, with both Democratic and Republican adminsitrations. AFAIK it's legal to use personal email for government business unless you are or work directly for the President. There are legitimate and illegitimate reasons for doing this, but it will always look bad.
This is just false. And it isn't just for security documents like what is happening to Trump. It is for all documents that belong to your employer who in this case is the government. Its amazing to me to watch Democrats defend this sort of thing after seeing 20 years of them complaining about Republicans doing the same thing. Its wrong in both cases. All you are doing is showing that you personally have no ethics and just want to win at all costs. Which makes you exactly who shouldn't be in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can cite a law this guy is breaking, then you have a valid point. If not, you don't.
Trump's documents were covered under a number of laws, including the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act. Also, hiding *anything* that has been subpoenaed is a the very least contempt of court and can also be obstruction of justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Broadly, he violated the Federal Records Act and its implementing regulations and policies: https://www.archives.gov/news/... [archives.gov]
https://www.archives.gov/about... [archives.gov] describes the responsible of the agency head, which for down to the employees who generate, receive and handle records for the agency.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I looked it up. The FRA dates back to 1910, and was amended in 2014 to include electronic records.
Specifically 44 U.S. Code 2911 [cornell.edu] was amended to stipulate that any business conducted on a non-official messaging account be forwarded to an official account withhin 30 days. However, if you read the very short snippet I just linked, it does not make failing to forward such records a crime. Rather it makes it an adminsitrative infraction punishable by up to two weeks suspension and a reduction in pay gr
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure where you found those penalties, but https://www.law.cornell.edu/cf... [cornell.edu] says this guy comes a felony (18 USC 2071 allows up to three years imprisonment; I don't think 18 USC 641 applies to what he did, as it seems focused on the monetary value of the items or records).
Re: (Score:2)
I got it from 44 U.S. Code 2911, which I linked, and which specifies the non-criminal disciplinary punishments ("adverse actions") found in 5 U.S. Code Chapter 75 subchapters I, II and V [cornell.edu].
Your link applies to removal or destruction of records, not a failure to make them.
Again, I personally think that there is no real *moral* distinction to be made between destroying a record and intentionally failing to create one where you are supposed to. If it were up to me, this guy would be going to jail. But Congress
Re: (Score:2)
Earlier, you linked to 36 CFR section 1236.22, which is not statutory law.
If he gets an email that influences or directs his job function, or that records or explains a decision in his job, that's a record. It doesn't matter whether that's to his Gmail account or his NIAID account.
Re: (Score:2)
"Statutory law" simply means "law passed by the legislature", so yes, "44 U.S. Code 2911" is statutory law, along with everything else in the U.S. Code [wikipedia.org].
I focused on that particular law because it was the one that you claimed was being violated -- the FRA as amended in 2014. But if you actually look at that law, it explicitly allows using private email for business as long as you forward all the business emails to your official account. It makes failing to forward those emails an infraction (not a crime) opt
Re: (Score:2)
Technically it is legal, but you must copy all emails sent in this way and give them to the government, thus rendering them subject to FOIA requests. However, doing so with the intent of avoiding FOIA requests IS illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just false. And it isn't just for security documents like what is happening to Trump. It is for all documents that belong to your employer who in this case is the government.
There are no laws which make it a crime to use a personal device for public business. Instead, there are laws which make your personal devices public business if an investigation occurs. Then your device (or account, etc) gets subpoena'd. It is however illegal to do anything for the purpose of committing a crime, so if your goal is to get around FOIA then it is illegal to use your own device. Intent always matters.
You can literally be a volunteer in a government disaster recovery effort and have to surrende
Re: (Score:2)
So... Fauci by association? How far does the Intercept think it can run that tentacle? Director of NIAID reports to Director of NIH. Is it OK to implicate Tabak? Collins? They are bigger fish, so... again: Why mention Fauci?
https://oma.od.nih.gov/IC_Orga... [nih.gov]
Surely this FOIA dodge must've been bigger than Morens, right "the Intercept"? Secretary of HHS?
Higher, you want? Office of the President? At the time, wasn't that filled by a person who was known to destroy records by ripping them into little piec
gmail hacked? (Score:2)
"After noting that his Gmail account had been hacked..."
Could we stop saying that? It's not like some "hackers" cranked out some leet scripts and broke into gmail. His laptop was hacked. Or he had a crap password. Ot he was videod typing it in. And he didn't have 2fa.
We need a new phrase. One that doesn't evoke script kiddies in basements. One that doesn't imply blame on gmail.
Re: (Score:2)
> [...]
> One that doesn't imply blame on gmail.
No-one here thinks Gmail is to blame for someone gaining access to his Gmail account.
Re: (Score:2)
Could we stop saying that?
As much as I hate it, that horse has left the barn. It's like the last 10 times my crazy aunt that shares all the bullshit "name 10 things about you" posts got "hacked" and their account started spamming boner-pill links.
Did he use his personal email for WORK? Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, EVERY SINGLE RATIONAL government employee keeps a personal phone and personal email account separate from a work phone and work email address. You keep your work and life separate because if you don't and your email/phone get FOIA'd, that's a whole lot of your life about to be made public.
Second, it is 100% OK to talk with colleagues via personal communications.
Third, the second your start talking about work in such a way as to influence how the work gets done, that communication becomes of interest to the taxpayers and is eligible for FOIA.
The email Morens wrote concerning FOIA, which was sent from his Gmail account, contradicted a footer under his signature line: “IMPORTANT: For US-government related email,” it said, “please also reply to my NIAID address.”
And that's where he blew it. Bitch, moan, and kvetch about work all you want from your personal communication accounts, but the second you start doing work from it... it's FOIA-able.
What a complete numpty.
Gain of function cultist (Score:2)
Just for a little background, this is a researcher with a history of propaganda in favor of gain of function research, which was instrumental in hooking up Daszak with Fauci.
If Covid-19 was a lab leak of an enhanced virus, it wouldn't just invalidate his research career but would make it possible he was a lynch pin in the early deaths of tens of millions of people. Mistakes happen so I don't hold it against him or other gain of function cultists, but virologists are only human, they can't be relied upon to
Collateral damage for going after Trump (Score:2)
Forget about right and wrong, I'm only referring to the pundit class. They get paid to be outraged and defending this guy will interfere with being outraged over Trump. And pundit defenders of Trump will see this story as a way to inject whataboutism. Not actually being comparable would be irrelevant.
This could end up being like the scenario on VEEP where "Corpse F****ing" was discussed.
Multiple clips long, basically starts here: https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/0... [getyarn.io]
Smell The Coffee (Score:2)
The only question that matters (Score:2)
...is why someone ostensibly working directly for the public's benefit would do this?
This is not someone working on nuclear secrets nor international diplomacy.
This is someone in an agency where literally everything they're doing is in the public's benefit....Or is supposed to be.
Further, this wasn't just a one off, like someone using a gmail to hide an illicit affair.
This is someone who felt their REGULAR USUAL CORRESPONDENCE needed to be concealed from public revelation.
That's fucking insane.
If this was s
At the very least (Score:2)
Fire the man, strip him of his retirement and throw his ass in prison for his -blatant- ( read that intentional ) attempts to circumvent the laws concerning data retention.
Use him as a warning to any others who might be doing the same thing ( or are considering it ).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is exactly why they used personal email. Trolls and partisan louts want to snip out of context and cherry-pick to "fit" their evil and/or paranoid agenda.
FOIA has some nasty downsides, as it can make gov't officials waste a lot of time & money digging in files, and/or force people to only discuss certain things at the water cooler to avoid leaving a written trail for context trolls.
California makes requestors of local gov't info pay for the costs to collect and compile the info. Generally only esta
Re:THIS PROVES COVID19 WAS MADE IN A LAB (Score:5, Insightful)
If we could have a completely transparent government, it would cut down on all kinds of corruption. Go a step further and just make the email publicly readable without need for a specific request. No costs to collect or compile that and it would keep dishonest people away lest their own ill intent come to light. Obviously, perfect transparency is as impossible as any other ideal, but your argument that because some bad actors might do a thing means we ought not even try to be transparent is horribly misguided.
Someone might post lies or something hurtful on the Internet. Better we not let anyone freely post to message boards. In fact the communication device that enables that posting could be used to foment terrorism. Best we take away the computer and smartphone. I doubt you'd agree that a few bad actors should necessitate such actions.
And this solved nothing, because the trolls or otherwise maladaptive misanthropes just have a different talking point anyway. They're cranks, they'll find something regardless because they're working towards a conclusion they decided before even looking at the facts. And now you've come along trying to make a right out of two wrongs. I can't say that's any better than the trolls or the other glue sniffers you're deriding.
Re: (Score:2)
> but the best defense to that is the truth itself.
No! That's not how humans work. The most successful bullshitter wins. Most people won't do the necessary homework to debunk shit.
> Go a step further and just make the email publicly readable without need for a specific request.
That would just give cherry-pickers and mis-contexters big piles of fuel to spread controversy and chaos. Please go test on a different country first. If and when it works, THEN bring to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why they used personal email. Trolls and partisan louts want to snip out of context and cherry-pick to "fit" their evil and/or paranoid agenda.
How are you able to disambiguate motive?
FOIA has some nasty downsides, as it can make gov't officials waste a lot of time & money digging in files,
Might as well have said following the law has some nasty downsides.
and/or force people to only discuss certain things at the water cooler to avoid leaving a written trail for context trolls.
Too bad so sad. If you can't play by the rules GTFO. In the middle of a fucking pandemic bitching about being FOIA'd for relevant information is just as stupid as it sounds especially from public figures like Daszak et el.
Those knowingly attempting to circumvent oversight laws should be held fully accountable for their actions.
Re: (Score:2)
FOIA has some nasty downsides, as it can make gov't officials waste a lot of time & money digging in files,
That may be. It's not a good excuse to evade the requirement. He knew, or should have known, that making email records public on demand is part of the government employee gig.
California makes requestors of local gov't info pay for the costs to collect and compile the info. Generally only established news orgs and PACS can afford it.
Which has the unfortunate side effect of shutting small organizations and individuals out of participating in meaningful government oversight. There's a public interest in allowing people or groups without substantial financial resources to review public records. Sometimes they're trolls, and that's a pain to deal with, but sometimes t
Is it evil? Or paranoid? (Score:2)
Re:THIS PROVES COVID19 WAS MADE IN A LAB
This is exactly why they used personal email. Trolls and partisan louts want to snip out of context and cherry-pick to "fit" their evil and/or paranoid agenda.
It's hard to see how this fits the definition of evil. Saying that Covid originated in a lab isn't increasing the misery or suffering of anyone, which is the typical definition of an evil act.
In fact, depending on what the ground truth is, asking the question or showing a personal preference for one side or the other might actually serve to *reduce* misery and suffering, because knowing the true origins would better inform future policy.
It doesn't seem particularly paranoid either. Paranoia is based on fear
Re: (Score:2)
"Government employees doing government business using personal E-mail is illegal. As in, it's against the law. Being clearly described by the law as being forbidden."
Nobody is above the law... unless their name is Clinton, or Biden, or Pelosi, or really anyone on their side of politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is above the law... unless their name is Clinton,
Exactly. If only Republicans had investigated her [gainesville.com], they would have found the evidence.
or Biden
Hunter was just found guilty of tax evasion and a weapons violation. Last I checked, that falls into the definition of being held accountable.
or Pelosi
Say what? What fictitious crime are you rambling on about? And remember, if you're claiming whatever you think Pelosi did is a crime, that also applies to Republicans doing the same thing.
or really anyone on
Re: (Score:2)
"Exactly. If only Republicans had investigated her [gainesville.com], they would have found the evidence."
Evidence of what exactly? What evidence do you think is missing aside from that which she is proven to have destroyed?
"Hunter was just found guilty of tax evasion and a weapons violation. Last I checked, that falls into the definition of being held accountable."
Hunter Biden's deal is proof of corruption not accountability. He won't even face prison for his crimes.
"Yes, yes. It's only Democrats who are c
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why they used personal email. Trolls and partisan louts want to snip out of context and cherry-pick to "fit" their evil and/or paranoid agenda.
It's hard to see how this fits the definition of evil. Saying that Covid originated in a lab isn't increasing the misery or suffering of anyone, which is the typical definition of an evil act.
Maybe, maybe not. If it leads to China being so embarrassed that they suddenly call in our debt and stop trading with the U.S., that could rather greatly increase the misery or suffering of pretty much everyone. Even if there were airtight proof that it was created in a lab, the geopolitical concerns still might genuinely ethically and morally outweigh the ethics and morality of publishing that information, at least while the COVID pandemic is so fresh in people's minds.
I don't see how saying that Covid originated in a lab, as opposed to jumping species somewhere else, begins or feeds any sort of fear.
You don't see how saying that COVID
Re: (Score:2)
FOIA has some nasty downsides, as it can make gov't officials waste a lot of time & money digging in files, and/or force people to only discuss certain things at the water cooler to avoid leaving a written trail for context trolls.
Which is why Republicans in Florida passed a law protecting Ron DeSantis from having to show how much Floridian tax dollars he's using flying around the country. Even better, it's retroactive to before the law was passed.
Remember folks, all Republicans want is accountability
Re: (Score:2)
FOIA has some nasty downsides, as it can make gov't officials waste a lot of time & money digging in files, and/or force people to only discuss certain things at the water cooler to avoid leaving a written trail for context trolls.
Well sir, you've done an excellent job rationalizing censorship.
Free speech will always have downsides, but the alternative is much, much worse.
California makes requestors of local gov't info pay for the costs to collect and compile the info. Generally only established news orgs and PACS can afford it.
That's good. Information is available to ruling class only.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech will always have downsides, but the alternative is much, much worse.
Seems using free speech to do a denial of service attack on other free speech to censor it is as bad as the alternatives. Censorship is censorship, even if it is done by speech.
Re: (Score:2)
California makes requestors of local gov't info pay for the costs to collect and compile the info. Generally only established news orgs and PACS can afford it.
So basically only partisan news organizations and political slush funds are allowed to access "public" information. Because those groups are fucking great at giving people context.
It's really disconcerting watching the center-to-left (as I think it's fair to characterize the California legislature as a whole) behaving on the level of crooked small-town good-ol'-boy networks, all in the name of keeping people safe from - yikes - online trolls and misinformation! Oh, but Republicans do it too, so clearly this