Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States News

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Top NIH Official Advised Covid Scientists That He Uses Personal Email To Evade FOIA

Comments Filter:
  • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Friday June 30, 2023 @02:27PM (#63646918)

    He could easily have avoided all this by using Hunter’s laptop and Hillary’s email server.

  • ... in the NYT

    I guess he was overly cautious. The NYT is not reporting this.

    • The email is archived per federal regulations regarding record retention. He doesn't understand how modern enterprise coomputer systems work. He can delete all he wants. It doesn't disappear. This isn't 1991.
  • Liberal here... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jddj ( 1085169 ) on Friday June 30, 2023 @02:49PM (#63646980) Journal

    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.

    • Roaches avoid sunlight...
    • I don't see how one's belief about the origins of Covid have any bearing on what one thinks of an NIH employee?

      Whereas whether you think it was right to vaccinate people or not ( it was ) *is* relevant here.

      And yes, he did wrong.
      • 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.

        • "It has bearing on why the employee decided to try to skirt FOIA."

          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'
    • by Pascoea ( 968200 )
      Couldn't agree more. Fired, pension stripped, maybe charged. I'm no Trumper (read my comment history if you think I'm lying), but this behavior is "the swamp" that absolutely needs to be drained. Then probably burned and paved over.
      • by taustin ( 171655 )

        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)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 ) on Friday June 30, 2023 @05:07PM (#63647306)

      "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.

      • The spread and illness pattern within the market wasn't consistent with natural origin either.

        It wasn't?

        • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

          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

    • 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)

    by ebonum ( 830686 ) on Friday June 30, 2023 @02:53PM (#63646988)

    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)

      by ravenshrike ( 808508 )

      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.

      • INFO WARS DOT COM

        • 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

      • Not according to the NY Times
        https://www.nytimes.com/2021/1... [nytimes.com].

    • Re: Embarassed (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jddj ( 1085169 )

      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)

        by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Friday June 30, 2023 @03:47PM (#63647158)

        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.

      • 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)

      by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh.gmail@com> on Friday June 30, 2023 @03:10PM (#63647062) Journal

      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)

        by ahodgson ( 74077 )

        Not according to multiple members of the US security services. The first 3 cases were employees of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

        • "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.?

          • I think that's the agency Q works at.

            • by sfcat ( 872532 )
              They work at CIA, for the Biden administration. I'm really confused who folks on this topic think you are carrying political water for on this issue. Both parties have stated publicly they think it came from a leak at WIX And not some first term rep (like AOC or MTG), but the majority and minority leaders of both parties. At this point, you are arguing for a small group of 7 scientists who are hiding their documents and have admitting this publicly. 2020 called, they want their political debate back.
              • 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.

      • >"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

      • '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.

      • by whoda ( 569082 )

        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.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      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.

  • Only dinosaurs think things can be deleted and permanently discarded.

  • by Ryyuajnin ( 862754 ) * on Friday June 30, 2023 @02:59PM (#63647004)
    He was aware the entire time that he was violating federal records keeping policies. I hope they throw the book at him! https://www.archives.gov/about... [archives.gov]
    • 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.

      • by sfcat ( 872532 )
        That's because this isn't his first scandal. This is a good example of why slaps on the wrist are bad. He had a scandal with serious public health consequences (the p-hacking scandal) and nobody did anything to him. He got his slap on the wrist and thought he was untouchable. And now he is expecting the same thing to happen again which is why he has no problem admitting crimes to Congress in public. This is why you can't just give people a slap on the wrist for serious 1st time ethical offenses. Becau
    • 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

      • 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".

  • by smap77 ( 1022907 ) on Friday June 30, 2023 @03:02PM (#63647016)

    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 ./?

    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Friday June 30, 2023 @03:40PM (#63647146) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by sfcat ( 872532 )

        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.

        • by hey! ( 33014 )

          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.

          • by Entrope ( 68843 )

            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.

            • by hey! ( 33014 )

              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

              • by Entrope ( 68843 )

                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).

                • by hey! ( 33014 )

                  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

                  • by Entrope ( 68843 )

                    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.

                    • by hey! ( 33014 )

                      "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

        • 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.

        • 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

      • by smap77 ( 1022907 )

        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

  • "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.

    • > "After noting that *his Gmail account* had been hacked..."
        > [...]
        > One that doesn't imply blame on gmail.

      No-one here thinks Gmail is to blame for someone gaining access to his Gmail account.
    • by Pascoea ( 968200 )

      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.

  • by eepok ( 545733 ) on Friday June 30, 2023 @03:35PM (#63647136) Homepage

    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.

  • 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

  • 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]

  • It's no secret what they were doing for years. There's a patent trail. Many involving this guy https://patents.google.com/?in... [google.com] . What's the secret? There is none.
  • ...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

  • 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 ).

"Inquiry is fatal to certainty." -- Will Durant

Working...