So, it’s really starting to look like the hope was that the circle of who tested positive stayed small, Trump’s condition didn’t worsen, and they could get away with putting out Hope’s positive test to set up a scenario where they could later announce Trump’s positive test.
Am I missing something?
If that’s so, this was a ghastly, irresponsible, potentially deadly series of events orchestrated by the White House that put many at risk. And it all fell apart b/c the virus is a virus, not a political operative, and many people tested positive and Trump’s condition worsened.
This attempted walkback, which requires multiple doctors to have gotten the timeline wrong in the same way, is ridiculous. See @nycsouthpaw’s thread here —>
If what the doctors were saying was that wrong, why didn’t Meadows stop them immediately or at least clean it up in his gaggle with the reporters after? He didn’t say a word about any of that!
Like, even if the doctors (all) explained the timeline incorrectly, that means the doctors treating the president can’t keep the timeline of his illness and treatment straight. Bad! And they did so in a presser where they confused other things and refused to answer still others.
In addition to the Trump White House’s constant lies, there also is much longer history of the White House lying about presidential illness and disability (see buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisg…) — both of which counsel extreme skepticism of uncorroborated statements about Trump’s health.
So irresponsible for @Reuters to run this as a complete, at-face-value story, with NO mention of Meadows’s own statement from earlier, which he attempted to push out on background but was outed, in part, because he was caught on camera giving it. reuters.com/article/us-hea…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Breaking: Booksellers' challenge to Texas's book-ban regime succeeds at the Fifth Circuit.
Today, the full Fifth Circuit announced that the far-right judges of the court LOST a vote for rehearing en banc 8-9 after a 3-judge panel had previously upheld the dist ct's injunction.
There is highly questionable action from the Fifth Circuit this weekend, flagged to me by @steve_vladeck. On Saturday, the Fifth Circuit issued "a temporary administrative stay," allowing Texas S.B. 4 — the challenged Texas immigration law — to go into effect in 7 days.
Here's my thread on the preliminary injunction ruling from Feb. 29:
BREAKING: Fifth Circuit holds that fed'l emergency room protections (EMTALA) do not mandate that physicians provide abortions when that is the "stabilizing treatment" needed, upholding an injunction issued in a lawsuit brought by Texas. More to come: lawdork.com
For background on this issue (while I'm reading and writing), here's some a post relating to the still-pending SCOTUS stay application filed by Idaho in the inverse EMTALA litigation, where DOJ sued Idaho: lawdork.com/i/139439910/th…
BREAKING: Supreme Court will NOT hear case over Washington's conversion therapy ban, over the objection of Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. Thomas and Alito write.
Supreme Court also DENIES RFK Jr.'s request to intervene at SCOTUS in Murphy v. Missouri, the case over Biden administration social media influence out of the Fifth Circuit. Thomas notes his dissent.
BREAKING: On a 2-1 vote, the 11th Circuit DENIES Florida’s request that it be allowed to enforce its anti-drag law against everyone in the state except the plaintiffs during the appeal.
Jordan and Rosenbaum, both Obama appointees, hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an injunction prohibiting all enforcement of the ban, given its underlying finding that the law is likely overbroad and this likely facially unconstitutional.
Brasher, a Trump appointee, dissents and would grant a partial stay, finding the injunction to be, itself, overly broad to achieving the goal of protecting the plaintiff’s rights.