The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
China Kinda Sus: Indictment for "Transnational Repression Scheme to Silence Critics" of China in U.S.
Defendants include a DHS employee and a retired DHS law enforcement agent.

From a Justice Department press release in U.S. v. LIU, though you can also read the Indictment, which explains in more detail just which federal crimes the government says were committed:
Yesterday, a grand jury returned an indictment in federal court in Brooklyn charging five defendants with various crimes pertaining to a transnational repression scheme orchestrated on behalf of the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC)….
Three of the defendants—Fan "Frank" Liu, Matthew Ziburis, and Qiang "Jason" Sun—allegedly perpetrated in the transnational repression scheme to target U.S. residents whose political views and actions are disfavored by the PRC government, such as advocating for democracy in the PRC. Among other items, the defendants plotted to destroy the artwork of a PRC national residing in Los Angeles, California that was critical of the PRC government, and planted surveillance equipment in the artist's workplace and car to spy on him from the PRC. Liu and Ziburis were arrested pursuant to a criminal complaint in March 2022, while Sun remains at large.
There are two new defendants charged in the scheme, Craig Miller and Derrick Taylor. Miller is a 15-year employee of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), currently assigned as a Deportation Officer to DHS's Enforcement and Removal Operations in Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Taylor is a retired DHS law enforcement agent who presently works as a private investigator in Irvine, California. The charges against Miller and Taylor pertain to their alleged obstruction of justice, including by destroying evidence, after they were approached by agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and asked about their procurement and dissemination of sensitive and confidential information from a restricted federal law enforcement database regarding U.S.-based dissidents from the PRC. This information was used by Liu and Sun in the transnational repression scheme. Both Miller and Taylor were arrested pursuant to a criminal complaint in June 2022….
"We will defend the rights of people in the United States to engage in free speech and political expression, including views the PRC government wants to silence" said Assistant Attorney General for National Security Olsen. "As charged, these individuals aided agents of a foreign government in seeking to suppress dissenting voices who have taken refuge here. The defendants include two sworn law enforcement officers who choose to forsake their oaths and violate the law. This indictment is the next step in holding all of these defendants responsible for their crimes." …
According to court documents, Liu, a resident of Jericho, Long Island, is president of a purported media company based in New York City; Ziburis, a resident of Oyster Bay, Long Island, is a former correctional officer for the State of Florida and a bodyguard; Sun is a PRC-based employee of an international technology company; Miller is a 15-year employee of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), currently assigned as a Deportation Officer to DHS's Emergency Relief Operations in Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Taylor is a retired DHS law enforcement agent who presently works as a private investigator in Irvine, California.
As alleged, Liu and Ziburis are charged with conspiring to act as agents of the PRC government. Liu, Ziburis, and Sun are charged with conspiring to commit interstate harassment and criminal use of a means of identification. Liu and Sun are charged with conspiring to bribe a federal official in connection with their scheme to obtain the tax returns of a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States. Both Miller and Taylor are charged with obstruction of justice, while Taylor is charged with making a false statement to the FBI….
As set forth in court filings, Liu and Ziburis operated under Sun's direction and control to discredit pro-democracy PRC dissidents residing in the United States—including in New York City, California, and Indiana—by spying on them and disseminating negative information about them. For example, at Sun's direction, Liu paid a private investigator in Queens to bribe an Internal Revenue Service employee to obtain the federal tax returns of one of the dissidents. The private investigator was cooperating with law enforcement, and no Internal Revenue Service employee received a bribe payment. The defendants planned to publicly disclose the dissident's potential tax liabilities to discredit him. The co-conspirators also made plans to destroy the artwork of a dissident artist whose work is critical of the PRC government, and the artist's sculpture depicting PRC President Xi Jinping as a coronavirus molecule was demolished in the Spring of 2021. Sun paid both Liu and Ziburis for these efforts to stalk, harass, and surveil dissidents residing in the United States.
As part of their efforts, Liu, Ziburis, and Sun electronically spied on the pro-democracy activists. For example, posing as an art dealer interested in purchasing the artwork of the dissident artist, Ziburis secretly installed surveillance cameras and GPS devices at the dissident's workplace and in his car. While in the PRC, Sun watched the live video feed and location data from these devices. Liu, Ziburis, and Sun made similar plans to install surveillance equipment at the residences and on the vehicles of two other dissidents. Liu and Ziburis planned to gain access to one such residence by posing as a member of an international sports committee.
Liu, Ziburis, and Sun also planned to interview the dissidents in mock media sessions, using the cover of Liu's purported media organization. Sun provided outlines for these fake interviews and designed questions to elicit answers that were intended to humiliate or discredit the dissidents. Liu, Ziburis, and Sun intended that audio or video clips of these statements could be used in PRC propaganda materials targeting the dissidents.
One of Liu's co-conspirators (Co-conspirator) retained Taylor to obtain confidential and sensitive personal identification information regarding multiple PRC dissidents residing in the United States, including passport information, passport photos, flight records, and immigration records. In turn, Taylor tasked two DHS law enforcement officers, including Miller, to obtain these records. Miller and the other DHS agent obtained the information from a restricted federal law enforcement database and improperly provided the records to Taylor, who then passed the information to the Co-conspirator. Liu, Ziburis, and Sun used this information to target and harass the PRC dissidents, while acting on behalf of the PRC government.
Later, the Co-conspirator, acting at the direction of law enforcement, called Taylor and claimed that he had received a subpoena from the Department of Justice seeking the Co-conspirator's communications with Taylor. Taylor directed the Co-conspirator to withhold such information from the government. Miller and Taylor procured and disseminated sensitive and confidential information from a restricted federal law enforcement database regarding U.S.-based dissidents from the PRC. This improperly provided information was used by Liu, Ziburis, and Sun in the transnational repression scheme targeting these very dissidents.
When FBI special agents confronted Miller and Taylor about their roles in improperly disseminating confidential and sensitive law enforcement information, Miller and Taylor both lied about their past conduct. Additionally, Miller deleted text messages with Taylor from his phone while being interviewed by the FBI, and Taylor instructed a co-conspirator to withhold evidence from the government.
When interviewed by FBI special agents, Taylor falsely claimed that he had obtained the records in question from a friend who was using the "Black Dark Web"—likely a reference to the "Dark Web."
When FBI special agents interviewed Miller, he initially claimed to be in sporadic contact with Taylor, but that the two did not discuss work matters since Taylor's retirement to become a private investigator. After agents admonished Miller to be honest, Miller admitted that Taylor had provided him names to run through law enforcement databases but claimed that the names were not in his phone, which he repeatedly consulted and referred to during the interview. FBI special agents then asked Miller for consent to search the phone. Miller granted consent and ultimately admitted that he had run the queries for Taylor and sent the results to Taylor via text message, and that Taylor had provided a gift card in return.
Following the interview, FBI special agents began to search Miller's phone but were unable to find the text messages between Miller and Taylor that Miller had referred to during the interview. Agents then called Miller to ask whether the text messages were still in the phone. He confirmed that they were under the name "Derrick" and expressed surprise that the agents could not find them. After FBI agents reminded Miller that it is a crime to lie to federal law enforcement officers, Miller admitted that he had deleted the text chain with Taylor during the interview earlier that day and that he had fabricated all earlier statements about the text chain, including whether the chain included the names requested by Taylor.
The charges in the indictment are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty….
The FBI has created a website for victims to report efforts by foreign governments to stalk, intimidate, or assault people in the United States. If you believe that you are or have been a victim of transnational repression, please visit https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/transnational-repression.
The government's case is being handled by the Office's National Security and Cybercrime Section. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alexander A. Solomon and Emily J. Dean are prosecuting the case with assistance provided by Trial Attorney Scott Claffee of the National Security Division's Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher D. Grigg of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Kimberly Svendsen of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Craig Miller lied, admitted to it after being told "lying to the feds is a crime," then went through those two steps again, all in what seems like one sitting? And then did it all again? Holy crap dude.
I think petty tyrants shouldn't have access to all this information on us all or the power over us. This single case involved at least five of them being incredibly corrupt to where they could have destroyed somebody's life for money and maybe to help an old colleague help the Chinese fuck someone over.
Hey, lawyer scumbags. In 2020, the tech billionaires suppressed the American economy by inducing the Democrat Party to shut down travel and business to destroy us from within, on the flimsiest pretext of a weak cold virus. This was to kowtow to the Chinese Commie Party, for access to its markets, and for their unjust enrichment. Do something about that.
Zero tolerance for the servants of the Chinese Commie Party, like the Walton family.
Pro-criminal scumbag lawyer prosecutes attack victim defending himself. The charge is murder of his client, the diverse thug.
https://reason.com/2022/07/08/charging-a-bodega-worker-who-stabbed-his-attacker-isnt-criminal-justice-reform/
Our tech billionaires scored $1.7 trillion, the Chinese ones $2trillion from the lockdowns. Kill them. Seize their assets.
Why is the lawyer pussy so weak. China executes our spies. We should execute theirs. Russia takes hostages. We should take family members of Putin hostage. This is war, and the lawyer is working for the other side, gaslighting us with procedure and rule of law lies.
The assassination of Prime Minister Abe. Good argument that all in person meetings not requiring a hands on procedure should be banned.
These diverses will have the full protection of the scumbag lawyer profession.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-seeking-teen-suspects-in-fatal-beating-of-73-year-old-man/ar-AAZnrK0?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=9754f77a944e4c8f9cd620ef6642c9aa
The scumbag lawyer profession is protecting the Chinese Commie Party from accountability for the devastation of COVID. Most of the devastation was caused by the lockdown, not by the virus. Still the Chinese Commie assets in the US, their $1.06 trillion in US bonds, should be seized to compensate those nursing home patients that died from it. That would be a good pay day for a patriotic lawyer. The scumbag traitor judge is a relative of the Missouri Limbaugh, of Rush fame. He used the same lame, fake excuse that my mass murdering vile feminist on the federal bench used to dismiss mine. I tried to charge her with mass murder in Mercer County. That court colluded with the mass murderer, and required that I have a New Jersey license. They did not even accept the complaint. There is no legal recourse against the servants of the Chinese Commie Party.
https://missouriindependent.com/2022/07/08/federal-judge-dismisses-missouri-ag-eric-schmitt-lawsuit-blaming-china-for-covid-19/
I happy to see someone is doing something about what has obviously been happening. Unfortunately I imagine it's a small step forward.
But there is no problem with TikTok harvesting the personal information of Americans, right?
All Zoom meetings are recorded on Chinese servers by its developer, a former Cisco disgruntled employee and now traitor.
China is not an ally. Not sure I’d say they’re an enemy, but they’re certainly an adversary. The poster above is correct that it demonstrates how the government (or private business) shouldn’t have all this info on us.
Also reinforces how fucked up our biased narrative-driven media is today. For the first year+ of the pandemic the media shouted down anyone who blamed China for the mess and actually called anyone who touted the lab leak theory (not proven but certainly plausible) racist. Because any admission of Chinese culpability might maybe somehow sort of help Trump. The government that does things like this was defended by our “watchdogs” for their own reasons. And now the trail is so cold we’ll never know the truth. Our media is worthy of zero respect.
I mean, the initial probability was low because the initial science pointed to a zoonotic origin. Only after the most likely channels were one by one eliminated did the lab leak idea become likely.
There was a lot of full-on scheming chinamen racism in the early days of the pandemic.
Our media is worthy of zero respect.
This is a line. Feels good, but is ultimately empty bluster.
How did you hear about the lab leak theory in the first place?
I heard Senate testimony on C-SPAN. 80000 animal samples were negative for Covid. Not one word in the media.
Bullshit. They’re appalling. An embarrassment. Not really worth the effort to read.
Ground zero for the pandemic was like a block from a lab that was doing research on exactly this type of virus. Gain of function research. And we knew it because we were partially funding it. There’s really zero chance that the lab was the source of the virus? And it’s racist to suggest that it’s a possibility? You’re really going to die on that hill?
Our media quashed those suggestions because they were worried it would let Trump off the hook. Played their fucking tiresome race card. It’s not an empty political line, it’s the goddamn truth. You don’t know I can’t stand Trump but playing race politics to quash honest inquiry should be embarrassing to anyone with a sense of shame.
People who call others racist are called race whores. Zero tolerance for race hooers.
Lots of incorrect statements here:
We don't know exactly where ground zero was, that remains largely speculative.
The lab doing research on the virus is near the place where that virus occurs naturally, by design.
We were not funding gain of function research in any way that would give rise to such a virus.
I did not say that there was zero chance, where did you get that? I thought it was unlikely when the science was that it was unlikely, and have now changed my opinion as the underlying facts have changed.
The media followed the science at the time pretty closely, so if it hurt Trump that was separate.
"The lab doing research on the virus is near the place where that virus occurs naturally, by design."
No. The place the virus "naturally occurs" was hundreds of miles away from Wuhan.
More uncited info, but that's pretty close, so far as outbreaks are concerned.
Sorry, unlike you, I have cites.
The closest COVID relatives were in bat caves in the Yunnan Province, China, over 1500 KM from Wuhan....
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.581569/full
That's like the distance between New York and Chicago. If not further.
So...no, not close at all.
But feel free to post more uncited facts. Don't bother yourself with doing your own research.
Glad to see you manage to cite something for once. Not sure I buy the connection they're making, but it's a scientific paper! I'm glad to start motivating you to look stuff up. If nothing else, it's good experience in critical thinking.
Your subsequent analysis is where the issue remains. First, bat coronaviruses are more broadly found than this one example they think is extra similar to Covid.
But more importantly, these distances don't seem as extraordinary as you believe. For instance, do you recall the initial reporting on wet markets being the source? Or all the scientists who thought (and some still think) the origin wasn't even bats? Are they all liars, cowed by feats of being called racist?
But anyhow, great comment, best back and forth conversation you and I have had in a long time.
"For once"...
Still no Sarcastro cites for his dubious information.
Once again, the facts are simple. Mine are backed up. And yours....never are.
Why *do* they call him Gaslightro anyway?
Be specific about what statements I have made you would like me to support.
Maybe they are not supportable, I'm not immune to that. But let me know what they are, don't just waive your hands and attack me as a person!
It would be a refreshing change if you provided third-party support for ANY of your claims.
"Once again, the facts are simple."
That's sort of the basis of all of Armchair's thoughts. Nothing is complex. It's all simple and easy. And he sees all clearly. If only the rest of us did.
Armchair, the facts are anything but simple.
Here's the latest from WHO.
https://www.science.org/content/article/open-minded-underwhelming-mixed-reactions-greet-latest-covid-19-origin-report
And yes, WHO has it's issues, but, as this article makes clear, we all know that and so take some account of that. WHO's panel things the lab leak theory needs more study, but there are basically no scientists who think it's the slam dunk you do.
Moreover, you cited an article that simply indicates the closest known COVID relatives are hosted in horseshoe bats located in Yunnan. That's a long way from getting you to: therefore Covid-19 came from a lab leak. You're leaning into confirmation bias fueled by faulty logic.
Here's one critique of your theory (and your interpretation of that work you cited):
“Underwhelming” was the verdict of Michael Worobey of the University of Arizona, even though the report prominently features his own work: two studies recently posted as preprints that provide evidence for “zoonotic” spillover of the virus from animals to humans at a Wuhan market. Coronaviruses found in horseshoe bats in China and Laos have about 96% genetic similarity to SARS-CoV-2—a significant evolutionary distance, which leads many scientists to suspect an “intermediate host” harbored the virus before it reached people.
But at least you managed to cite a scientific paper, even if mostly just to confirm your own biases and pretend that, "case closed, it's simple."
It's not simple. We still don't know the answer. The lab leak theory is not the leading theory, though a possibility. The world is complex, not simple. It's people who choose simplicity that leads us to totalitarianism. The world is complex and messy. Anyone selling you a simple solution is trying to take your shirt, or your freedom.
"Be specific about what statements I have made you would like me to support."
Um, how about all of them?
@ NOVA,
Sigh. The facts really are simple. But...you need them spelled out. So here are those facts.
1. Sarcastro makes a claim that "lab doing research on the virus is near the place where that virus occurs naturally, by design."
2. I point out the lab doing the research is actually nowhere near the place the virus occurs naturally
3. Sarcastro demands a citation (while failing to provide his own).
4. I provide that citation
5. Sarcastro diverts, still doesn't provide a claim.
Those are the facts. What you've done....lots of allusions and strawmen...don't affect those facts. If you'd like to comment on them, do so.
Armchair,
Nice try.
"I point out the lab doing the research is actually nowhere near the place the virus occurs naturally"
Wrong. You pointed out that the closest relative of covid-19 that, so far, has been found in wild animal populations was found in horseshoe bats in Yunnan. But this isn't "the virus", this is a 96% relative of "the virus" which, pursuant to scientists I cited, is still a significant evolutionary jump to covid-19.
You are taking absolutely incomplete information and jumping to unwarranted conclusions. You pretend you've established more than you have. You haven't established anything.
Sarcastr0, the lab is not near where the likely precursor to covid-19 occurs naturally. It's ~2000km away.
If you're going to correct someone, at least be right.
I was going off AL's hundreds of miles. I don't know the exact range.
Bottom line, we are all speaking of the early 2020s, where all the place of origin info was much more up in the air. And it's still pretty up in the air!
"I was going off AL's hundreds of miles. I don't know the exact range."
But you know it's near? That was your claim.
Better to say we didn't know where the origin point was, then, than to claim it was 'near'.
And if you're going to correct Sarcastro, you should be scrupulously accurate. We don't know where the likely precursor to covid-19 occurs naturally. The closest known relative is hosted in horeshoe bats in Yunnan, but horseshoe bats have a habitat/range that comes far closer than 2000km to Wuhan and, in any event, scientists tend to think human exposure wouldn't have come directly from bats, but through other mammals sold at wet markets. Basically, you are way overselling the idea that the most likely precursor to covid-19 was ~ 2000km away.
Also, the distance from Yunnan to Wuhan is about 1727km according to Google, which equates to about 1,000 miles. !,000 miles is significant, sure, but the range of the horseshoe bat extends from the interior where Yunnan is all the way to the coast, well over the 1700 km to Wuhan. I say all this about distances not because I have any basis to conclude that the viruses found in Yunnan bats could also be in the same species found nearer Wuhan, but only that Armchair and others are similarly bereft of facts to deny that could be the case, as well as literally hundreds of plausible alternatives as to how covid-19 could have originated near Wuhan without the lab leak theory being true (transporting animals for sale, for example).
You guys pretending it's open and shut or "correcting" others' facts are undermining your credibility. There are lots of unknowns. Pretending things are simple only says something about you.
The closest strain we have was recovered by the Wuhan lab from caves ~2000km away from Wuhan. (The province they're in is rather large, the caves are in a specific spot, not right on the border). I want to say the precise distance is 2200km, but I'd need to look it up to be sure.
We actually had that strain before Covid-19 broke out. It was on the Wuhan lab's website until mid-January (when they took down all their web-published sequences). and had been there for over a year iirc. Whereas they did not have records of that strain from any other location. So in terms of what we knew, we knew our most similar strain existed in bats in caves ~2000km from the lab. (And while bat viruses aren't exhaustively surveyed, you can't just imagine it places, you have to go out and look for it - it's certainly not the case that even within one species, all viruses will be uniformly distributed throughout the entire geographic range).
Now, assuming there was a zoonotic origin, and assuming patient zero did in fact catch covid-19 in or near Wuhan, than obviously some animal near Wuhan would be the source. But you *don't know that* until you find an animal population near Wuhan which has an even more similar virus. It's all supposition until you find the host population.
If you don't know it, it's not a fact. The fact is, as of the start of the pandemic, the closest virus *we knew of* to Covid-19 was ~2000km away in bats.
You're piling conjecture on top of conjecture on top of conjecture. Those aren't facts.
Now, assuming there was a zoonotic origin, and assuming patient zero did in fact catch covid-19 in or near Wuhan, than obviously some animal near Wuhan would be the source. But you *don't know that* until you find an animal population near Wuhan which has an even more similar virus. It's all supposition until you find the host population.
There is a lot of supposition whether or not you find a host population.
Maybe patient zero caught the virus somewhere away from Wuhan (maybe from some person far from Wuhan (thus, not really patient zero, but we don't know that), and brought it to Wuhan. Perhaps patients elsewhere did likewise, in other places, got sick there, or died in those places, without anyone noticing it was not some kind of routine flu. With an unknown virus, and without specialized knowledge, why would anyone think otherwise?
In short, we are free to suppose the virus may have been established in humans and transmitted socially before it was recognized. If you grant that as a possibility—that the Covid virus in humans initially went unrecognized, (more likely than not, given that it is novel)—then ask yourself, where in the world would it most likely be recognized first? Wouldn't it be in a research facility which not only studied that kind of virus, but also monitored its own staff as a safety precaution?
Indeed, assuming a research lab which followed routine biosafety procedures, can anyone say with any assurance that if a lab worker came down with Corona virus it is more likely that he got it from the lab than from infection contracted socially, outside the lab? I suggest if you assume a zootic origin almost anywhere on earth, it is more likely that it somehow spread to the vicinity of Wuhan, and was contracted there socially outside the lab, than that it was a result of a failure of an efficient sanitary protocol at the lab. Failures of that sort do happen. They are extremely uncommon. Ordinary world-wide contagion is far more common. It happens annually.
Seems like there is likelihood that the argument is backward. Instead of initial recognition taking place near Wuhan because Wuhan caused the outbreak, the outbreak may have been found first near Wuhan because it had spread widely, but nowhere else was anyone as likely to recognize it.
SL, that's a sad level of parroting Chinese propaganda. It's skin to asking why people doubt that the moon is made of green cheese, given that we haven't been there in (almost) 50 years and only have a few samples that suggest it's made of rock.
I completely agree that in early 2020, prior probability favored a zoonotic origin *somewhere*. But that's prior probability based on previous pandemics, not actual knowledge of covid-19.
Also, given the Wuhan lab reputedly had a documented history of poor adherence to safety protocols, I'm not sure you can assume a lab which followed routine biosafety procedures. (And regardless, the first reported cases were not detected by the lab at all. Whether or not those are the first cases China actually knew about is a different story, and I'm unwilling to go down that rabbit hole).
Armchair,
Nice try.
"I point out the lab doing the research is actually nowhere near the place the virus occurs naturally"
Wrong. You pointed out that the closest relative of covid-19 that, so far, has been found in wild animal populations was found in horseshoe bats in Yunnan. But this isn't "the virus", this is a 96% relative of "the virus" which, pursuant to scientists I cited, is still a significant evolutionary jump to covid-19.
You are taking absolutely incomplete information and jumping to unwarranted conclusions. You pretend you've established more than you have. You haven't established anything.
Squirreloid,
My whole point is that people are piling conjecture on conjecture, but that can work both ways if conjecture is the standard. I made clear, piling conjecture on conjecture doesn't get you to facts:
Me, concluding, the comment to which you purported to respond:
"There are lots of unknowns. Pretending things are simple only says something about you."
You're barking up the wrong tree. Go explain your point about piling on conjectures to Armchair.
And I heard about it on the first place by paying attention and being open minded and thinking “the goddamn racists might have a point”.
You paid attention *to the media*.
I paid attention to the debate. The concept came up and the majority of the media dismissed it as racist. But I ignored that bullshit and considered the possibilities. You tell me why they dismissed such an obvious possibility. They did it for the same reason they dismissed the laptop story. Because they didn’t want to help Trump.
They didn’t follow science, most of them wouldn’t understand science if it slapped them in the ass with both hands. They throw around “science” when they think they suits their purposes and dismiss it when it doesn’t.
And talk about disinformation, please point out where I said that I knew where ground zero was. I said possibly. We’ll never know because the chase got buried.
You’ve continuously defended them because you’re in the choir that they’re preaching to. I’m not in a choir so I can see it plain as day. I’ve never watched a minute of Fox News because it’s obvious slanted crap. Problem is that places like the NYT and WaPo used to be biased but better, but now they’re just like Fox. CNN should be drug out and shot to put us out of its misery.
The lab leak theory was every bit as viable in early 2020 as it is now. The media just didn’t want to know.
Where did you read about the science? Did you do all the analysis yourself? What made you decide to distrust the many scientists who initially believed a zoonotic origin was likely, and to rather believe those who were sure it was the Chinese?
I've changed my opinion - I was initially wrong (though I never said it was impossible that it came from a lab, only that it was dumb to discard all other possibilities). But I don't have a lot of shame following the best info at the time, while not ever giving in to certainty.
You have absolutely given in to certainty. Legit certainty should be hard to come by, else you're looking less at messy reality and more at enticing narratives.
I don't actually love the media; believe me I know how bad they are at science reporting.
I only appear to defend them because this performative 'I don't trust the media' is self-deceptive nonsense.
I don't know our care the specific sources you get your info from, so long as they are varied. But you seem to be pretty convinced that institutions with internal controls are not to be trusted. That seems more like confirmation bias-plus-right wing narrative.
Could the Post and Times do better? Lord, yes. But are they never to be trusted? LOL, most of the right wing media runs on the reporting Post, Times, and the like do.
Holy hell. “Probably” and “possibly” are not certainty. Are you even reading what I’m writing? The info I was getting was filtered through the narrative filter. But I never saw anything that condemned the lab possibility. Just that it was racist to think it. Which is obviously garbage.
And yes, the NYT and WaPo are worthless now. Reading them requires me to think about how close what I’m reading is to true, and the signal to noise ratio just ain’t worth it.
You eat the left wing narrative like a fat kid at a pie shop, but I’m the one lost in the right wing narrative. Two years ago I was right and you weren’t. Which of us is caught up in narrative?
Wrong scope - you're *certain* what you read in the papers of record is worthless.
Reading *anything* you should be skeptical it's a correct take. Especially when the story reads to you as especially likely.
I'm a liberal, but it's telling how sure you are I uncritically consume my media.
Separately, initially knee-jerk blaming China absolutely was, if not exactly racist, blind nationalist bigotry. The facts were just not in yet.
That is precisely what he did not write.
Why do you intent such obviously wrong straw men?
Read better: the NYT and WaPo are worthless now
Certain enough for you?
Unsurprisingly, no.
Him: "And yes, the NYT and WaPo are worthless now. Reading them requires me to think about how close what I’m reading is to true, and the signal to noise ratio just ain’t worth it."
You: "you're *certain* what you read in the papers of record is worthless."
Take your own advice.
Worthless because I don't want to spend the effort parsing what's real and what's narrative in what they publish. Not certain that they're wrong but wrong consistently enough that it's not worth wasting the time.
Read what I wrote, not what your political filter reads.
And blaming China for a virus that started in China is not nationalist bigotry. If it had started here your team would have been blaming America with every breath.
bevis, you would be utterly at a loss even to prove that Covid started in China. It could have started anywhere, and been first recognized in China. How would you know?
I have a comment above, at 1:40 am (yikes, way past bedtime) which says a bit more about that.
If you actually had watched a minute of Fox News, you'd know that the NYT and WaPo are absolutely nothing like Fox. The NYT and WaPo are of course liberal in general, in part because the people who work for them are liberals from blue areas and have the natural biases that humans have. They buy into their own narratives more than they should. But they're news organizations. They try to report news as best they can. When they make mistakes, they issue corrections.
Fox, with a handful of exceptions — most of whom quit in recent years because they couldn't take it anymore — does not even try. They barely even have any news coverage, as opposed to punditry, but even when they have news stories, they view themselves as an arm of the GOP. Just like how the CPUSA abruptly turned on a dime from anti-war to pro-war in 1941 when Operation Barbarossa began, Fox's message is "What does the GOP want us to say today?"
All are unreliable. That's the point.
No, that's not the point.
All media is written by humans with biases. That's true. To that extent they are unreliable. But there is a difference between biased news outlets trying to provide objective news and biased propaganda machines pumping out propaganda. They are not all the same.
A free press was important enough the Founders included it in the First Amendment. The press wasn't any less biased then than the NYT or WaPost or Wall Street Journal are now. They recognized, however, that the alternative to a free press is a government controlled press. Fox News aficionados would appear to be fine with that so long as it's GOP propaganda they are fed. The rest of us prefer a rich ecosystem of private news organizations from which you can cross-check and get some sense of what the facts are, while knowing isolating yourself in one bubble will lead you astray.
Be smart, don't pretend just because everyone has biases that they are all the same. They aren't. All people are unreliable, but there's a difference between Guiliani and Ted Olsen. Pretending there isn't, is a big step towards totalitarianism.
Media Like Politifact?
Headline:
PolitiFact Quietly Retracts 'Pants On Fire' Lab Leak Fact Check
Good for them. The underlying best understanding changes, they should change their analysis.
Do your news sources ever do that?
“Underlying best analysis” my ass. Absolutely nothing has changed from two years ago.
In 2020 do you think suggesting the lab leak as a possibility was racist? Should multiple potential sources have been investigated?
You’re suggesting that all of us are under the spell of evil right wing spin. But all you got from your faith in the media was left wing spin. And you and they were wrong and our (at least my) objectivity was the right path. Can’t you see how you were mislead?
To be fair, something changed - they continuously failed to find an intermediate host animal with a covid-19 precursor, which made a zoonotic origin near Wuhan increasingly improbable.
That's both actually science and actually changed since early 2020.
Perhaps at the beginning of an investigation you chase down more than one angle. That way you don’t waste two years pissing into the wind.
This is indeed a flaw in the incentives of science - they want to find the answer, so all the research tends towards the most likely area of investigation.
Once again, initially nearly all the science said zoonotic, and all the politicians were the ones yelling about lab leak or bioweapon or even more outlandish nonsense.
I don’t think that’s right. There wasn’t enough science to form a firm one way conclusion - evidenced by the fact that that conclusion was way wrong.
I think you’re confusing the filtered reporting that there was only one possible explanation with the fact that there other plausible explanations. The other ones violated the narrative (“Trump blames the Chinese so it can’t be their fault”). The lab theory was brought up early by people other than Republican senators and shot down as being racist.
You’re essentially using the biased reporting by the media to confirm the biased reporting by the media.
I was never under the impression that there was one possible explanation. Please cite to anything that said that.
There has always been significant debate and alternative theories and that remains the case. Those pretending the question is now settled are simply wrong.
They claimed people lied, "pants on fire", not that opinions differed.
That's hardly debating the "best understanding", that's desperately trying to shut down debate.
And remember, its "fact checkers" that FB, Instagram, and Twitter use to justify censoring social media as disinformation.
That was what the best science at the time indicated the probabilities were. Sometimes the science is wrong.
The cured the error. But you're more into attacking them for whatever, so you ignore that and enjoy using 2020 hindsight to pretend some kind of extra insight.
Yeah, sometimes "the science" is wrong.
But it is odd how the errors always go in the same direction, isn't it?
"That was what the best science at the time indicated the probabilities were. Sometimes the science is wrong."
That's not how science works.
You examine evidence, and make inferences. And as more evidence became available, it turned out that the people who inferred that a lab leak was plausible were making more correct inferences than the people who inferred that it had been effectively ruled out.
But none of that excused the media falsely claiming that the people making the correct inferences were lying or conspiracy mongering.
It would be more accurate to say that prior probability strongly favored a zoonotic origin. But that's not 'science' as it relates to the specific origin of covid-19. The best *hypothesis* was a zoonotic origin - the problem is a lot of people immediately jumped to 'the best hypothesis is the right answer, and any other answer is wrong', all without ever actually bothering to *test the hypothesis* (you know, the actual science part).
So of course the lesson is, if the "best science" doesn't make sense to you, make up your own mind.
If Cotton and others deferred to the best science we never would have arrived at the truth.
The Pope won his argument against Galileo because all the experts were on the Pope's side (and Galileo didn't feel like being guest of honor at a barbecue).
I'd like to hear you concede that Tom Gotten and Tucker Carson were nearer the truth than you and Anthony Fauci, because they accessed the information independently rather than listening to the experts who were axe grinding, not truth seeking.
But I won't hold my breath, you already said Cotten was lying because he arrived at the truth independently from the gatekeepers.
What happened to you?
The reason the "initial science" didn't point to a lab leak is because it was actively suppressed:
“But the most compelling reason to favor the lab-leak hypothesis is firmly based in science,” physician Steven Quay and physicist Richard Muller wrote in The Wall Street Journal.... COVID “has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus” — but has been used repeatedly by “gain of function” researchers supercharging viruses. That it was immediately contagious, without the usual evolutionary steps, “is unprecedented” — and also suggests it was man-made.
The authors remark that within weeks after the release of COVID’s genome in February 2020, a team of French and Canadian scientists noted in a paper that it “may provide a gain-of-function” capability “for efficient spreading” to humans.
But many virology insiders didn’t want “gain of function” work to get the blame, including Peter Daszak, the head of EcoHealth Alliance, which had actually used a US government grant to fund coronavirus work at the Wuhan lab.
Crucially, Daszak worked to suppress any lab-leak talk. He quietly organized a February 2020 statement in The Lancet, which he signed with 26 others, that declared, “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”
https://nypost.com/2021/06/08/those-who-suppressed-the-lab-leak-covid-theory-need-to-be-investigated/
With a lot of useful idiots on Twitter, and dare I say it on comment threads, jumping onboard the suppression.
Weird all these opinions got out if they were suppressed.
They got out because non-media types were asking questions, and the media was reporting that the people asking questions were conspiracy-mongering.
Non media types. Who managed to be read quite widely.
Attempts to control the narrative by suppressing alternative viewpoints are great under this view. Either:
1) they didn't work to control the narrative, so no harm no foul or
2) they worked so well you never heard about the thing being suppressed
"How did you hear about the lab leak theory in the first place?"
From Tom Cotton.
Wapo: "Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked"
Yeah - anyone who was certain they knew what happened back then was strapping on the tin foil.
Cotton didn't purport to "kn[o]w what happened." He merely suggested that it was worth investigating. And for that, he was called a racist and a bigot.
Irredeemably conflicted scientists from Peter Daszak all the way up to Pope Fauci had initial reactions along the lines of "oh no, I hope it didn't come from the lab" until they worked together to draft a bunk opinion piece for The Lancet in February 2020 that the science was "settled" on a zoonotic origin. Their intimate financial and professional ties to the lab in question were, of course, suppressed. Their media friends, predictably, took that article and trumpeted it as the authoritative source that "debunked" any questions about the lab leak, such as those Tom Cotton was asking. Throw in insta-bans from Twitter, Facebook, etc. for having the temerity of even suggesting the virus might be manmade, and the game was locked, at least long enough that the true origin of the virus will never be conclusively established.
To suggest that the media did not have a heavy, heavy hand on the scales is either disingenuous, revisionist, or an outright lie. Your choice.
"To suggest that the media did not have a heavy, heavy hand on the scales is either disingenuous, revisionist, or an outright lie. Your choice."
It's probably all three options.
In April 2020, Cotton said 'This evidence is circumstantial, to be sure, but it all points toward the Wuhan labs. ' At the time this was absolutely a lie.
IIRC Cotton also said it may have been a bioweapon. You didn't mention that bit. He's either fucking nuts or too cynical to care about the truth.
=============================
Your yelling about suppression of a story you cite multiple media sources for is tellingly ridiculous.
"In April 2020, Cotton said 'This evidence is circumstantial, to be sure, but it all points toward the Wuhan labs. ' At the time this was absolutely a lie."
By April 2020, all of the circumstantial evidence in the record pointed to a lab leak. Cotton was absolutely correct, and he's even more correct with an additional two years of evidence.
But at the time, the pages of the NYT, WaPo, etc., and the airwaves of CNN, MSNBC, etc. decried even asking the question as "xenophobic," "racist," a "conspiracy theory," and "debunked." (I'm surprised the lab-leak theory was not also declared a "Putin tax hike.") All on the strength of a letter authored in February 2020 by scientists with undisclosed professional and scientific ties to the lab in question.
And woe be you if you asked the question on Facebook or Twitter. The blue-check brigade would have you suspended by lunchtime.
Now how could it be a lie when it turned out to be true?
And its easy to see why the NIH/CDC and their sycophants were trying so hard to suppress it, and they were the ones putting out the disinformation:
'NIH admits US funded gain-of-function in Wuhan — despite Fauci’s denials'
https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/
Kazinski: "Now how could it be a lie when it turned out to be true?"
Bc a bad person said it, so it needed to be false.
"IIRC Cotton also said it may have been a bioweapon. You didn't mention that bit."
Lol. It was reported in the media">that he said that.
But he didn't say it.
No, he didn't merely suggest it was worth investigating further. He said:
"This evidence is circumstantial, to be sure, but it all points toward the Wuhan labs. Thanks to the Chinese coverup, we may never have direct, conclusive evidence-intelligence rarely works that way-but Americans justifiably can use common sense to follow the inherent logic of events to their likely conclusion."
As I understand it, the lab leak theory still isn't the most likely vector, though not impossible.
"Yeah - anyone who was certain they knew what happened back then was strapping on the tin foil."
Lol. The people who were certain that they knew what happened (or didn't happen) were the Wapo. And they were wrong, as they admitted months later when they corrected the article.
So to be clear, you're admitting that the Washington Post was "strapping on the tin foil"?
Dude, the Wuhan accusers were at least as certain, and had many fewer scientists and many more politicians as sources.
There are plenty of times the press is awful for plenty of reasons, sometimes including bias. But in this instance the press and the science was aligned.
PRAISE SCIENCE!
You keep talking about "the science". What science? There was essentially no data to do science on. What science demonstrated that the lab leak theory was wrong?
And what was the scientific source for the assertion that suggesting that the Chinese government made a mistake that led to the pandemic was racist?
And what scientific information has changed so that now the lab leak theory is suddenly viable again?
They mislead you for their own purposes. For two years. And you're still too deep in the herd to see it. Skepticism about anything you read or hear these days is a virtue. Some of it is probably correct, but you've got to consider the viewpoint of the author to accurately determine fact from bullshit.
The best direct evidence against any of the lab theories has always been that the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site is suboptimal for human infection. However, that's only a very good argument against it being engineered as a bioweapon, which had never been a very strong theory. It's not a good argument against the virus being engineered or artificially selected for infection of other hosts (as done in the other coronavirus gain-of-function research conducted at WIV).
I don’t know about any of that and think the bio weapon stuff is most likely political conspiracy stuff. But the virus starting a stones throw from a lab doing research on that type of virus is a hell of a hint.
Sarcastro keeps talking about science but ignoring that as one (of several) starting point for investigation is the opposite of science. And cowing people from asking the questions by calling them racist is disgusting. But that’s the American media in the 2000s.
"Dude, the Wuhan accusers were at least as certain,"
Now it's "the Wuhan accusers"? Those are some flying goalposts.
I'm talking about Cotton. Cotton's comments quoted in the Wapo were uncertain and, the Wapo was certain, correct?
So in the instance I cited, it was the Wapo, and not Cotton, that met your criteria for "strapping on the tin foil", correct?
Cotton's comments were not very uncertain. He said "all" of the circumstantial evidence pointed to a lab leak and Americans should follow logic to the "likely conclusion." He ignored lots of science at the time. Those saying the theory has gotten considerably stronger seem to me to also be following in Cotton's footsteps.
The science is still very open and, as I understand it, the lab leak theory is still not the leading theory.
You have any actual scientific evidence/opinions that the lab leak theory is the consensus front-runner at this point?
I've been googling, and I keep seeing it's a viable, but not the leading theory. The WHO report being the most prominent example, but plenty of others.
"But in this instance the press and the science was aligned."
As others have pointed out, that doesn't mean anything.
There was evidence. Some people looked at the evidence and inferred that a lab leak was implausible. Others inferred that a lab leak was plausible.
And as more evidence became available, the additional evidence tended to support the inference that the lab leak was plausible.
Plausible is a far cry from "likely" as Cotton incorrectly and prematurely claimed.
And likely is a far cry from certain, which describes the Wapo’s reporting, not Cotton’s comments.
Whether or not it is likely is a matter of opinion. Cotton is entitled to his, you and Sarcastro are entitled to yours. But the lab leak certainly hasn’t been ruled out, as the Wapo claimed.
That's a fair point. The Washington Post screwed up and it's worth remembering that. They also issued a correction. But they shouldn't have made the error in the first place.
Sarcastro, you talk about the Science, but lets also talk about the money.
Collins, Fauci, and their bagman Daszak are all scientists, and they also control the lions share of money available for research in the entire field. And thru their funding of covid research and gain of function research, contrary to law, they were at risk.
They control the funding and are the gatekeepers of the approval of any practical application of research they don't fund.
There are not many scientists ready to buck that, it infects most health research, and most global warming research.
Which of course mean we can't trust them and have to reach our own conclusions.
If the government has an official position on the science, then the science is suspect, and likely crap they are pushing for their own ends.
Lets put it this way, if the government tells you that the only way to keep us safe from terrorism and crime is to follow their recommendations and get rid of encryption on the internet, and put thousand of cameras everywhere, and give them complete access to everyone's financial records.
You'll tell them you don't trust them and they are full of shit.
So why are you so ready to trust them when it comes to covering up illegal gain of function viral research?
Or on climate change when their "solution" gives them complete control of the economy, mobility, and our standards of living?
As far as I know — and I admit that I haven't followed this aspect of the story closely since the early months of the pandemic, so maybe there was something I missed — there's still no actual evidence of a lab leak. It's just that there's no hard evidence for any of the other possibilities, either, so relative to the other options, the lab leak has become more likely.
When this video still became known of Wuhan Chief Virologist Dr Shi Zhengli, and it was from a 2017 puff piece on the Wuhan Lab, there was absolutely no doubt where the virus came from, not more likely than not.
https://i1.wp.com/www.opindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/bat.jpg?w=800&ssl=1
Fauci's henchman Peter Daszak was furiously spinning disinformation claiming that Wuhan didn't keep live bats, rounding up 26 experts to debunk the theory in Lancet, that there was no gain of function research going on, but Fauci himself was funding it, contrary to US law through Daszak's Eco-health alliance.
Yeah, like the commercial says: that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
Okay, its only how it worked in this specific case.
Ill concede that.
I’m not saying I know because I don’t. But the lab leak should always have been considered a viable possibility. If it started a stones throw from the lab and the cause was something else, that would be a helluva coincidence. It should have been one of the alternatives investigated from the beginning.
Instead, the majority of our media worked to intimidate anyone who brought it up into silence. Not a good look.
I'll say it. China is our enemy. War is inevitable and coming sooner rather than later. We fail to prepare at our peril.
OK.
Why is McConnell trying to kill USICA?
bernard11, I suspect you know the answer. The GOP decided about 2 decades ago that winning elections was more important than the good of the country, so if sabotaging the country (ala Victor Orban) is necessary to ensure the GOP's hold on political power, McConnell is all for it.
It's gross. It has to stop and people need to wake up. And, no, the Democrats can't stoop to the same level or we are lost. Voters need to understand that if they reward the sabotage of American interests in order to maintain domestic power, we will lose the world to China.
Bernard, I didn't think you were that gullible.
The US Senate already passed the USICA on June 8:
"In a 68-32 vote the Senate passed the U.S. Innovation & Competition Act (USICA). The Senate's passage of this bill on a bipartisan basis"
The question is why is Pelosi trying to kill it by adding a bunch of poison pills in the House version.
If the Democrats want it, pass the bipartisan Senate version.
How do you think he is trying to do that? The bill passed the Senate already.
Michael and Kazinski,
You aren't aware that once the Senate and House each pass a version of a particular bill, it must go through reconciliation.
McConnell himself said he would kill USICA:
""Let me be perfectly clear: there will be no bipartisan USICA as long as Democrats are pursuing a partisan reconciliation bill."
Translation: Although the GOP does not control the House or the Senate, McConnell will use his minority power to kill USICA unless the Democrats, who control the House and the Senate, make concessions to McConnell. Up is down, the majority must make concessions to the minority in order to reconcile House and Senate versions of a bill with bipartisan support.
Yes.
Here is McConnell's tweet.
We won't ever have an "official" truth because no Federal is actively seeking it, as it will most likely implicate members of the Federal Class.
Isn't it weird? Millions of people died, trillions in economic damage, and the Federals are incurious about its genesis?
So weird.
Well, at least we have an admission that "Millions of people died, trillions in economic damage."
So it's not just a bad cold?
Much worse than a bad cold.
McKinsey consulting estimates the effects of suspending in person education globally during the pandemic is going to trim 0.9 trillion a year off of world GNP until at least 2040.
Of course it is.
But that's not what a lot of RW'ers were willing to admit. Including a fair number of commenters here.
I'm amazed this went almost 8mmediately to th avoid origin. Whileb5hatbisban issue, from my prespectivebthe issue is more pernicious and pervasive.
There seems to be a large Chinese Government effort dedicated to suppressing any criticism of the Chinese Government as Racist.
I am disappointed that this thread was sidetracked by more apologia for "settled science" based on self-interested and undisclosed railroading of the process. I was really hoping for a detailed analysis of how this prosecution is all just irrelevant red-baiting.
Sorry your political opposition isn't the tools you take them for. You, on the other hand, almost always deliver!
I don't think anyone is surprised by your excusing making, bootlicking, and gaslighting. He was just disappointed at the topic you chose for your ritual.
You were surprised I and my compatriots on this blog didn't deliver on your expected excuse making in the post right above this.
It was mostly you, not your compatriots. You delivered a much older and staler set of excuses than hoped for. That's not exactly the distinction you seem to think it is.
"We will defend the rights of people in the United States to engage in free speech and political expression, including views the PRC government wants to silence" said Assistant Attorney General for National Security Olsen.
lol sure you will
charges will be dropped
just a bargaining chip to keep Hunter in the clear from CEFC
"the FBI doing its job? something must be up!"
oh: FBI Director Christopher Wray defended the ending of the Department of Justice’s China Initiative
"We will defend the rights of people in the United States to engage in free speech and political expression, including views the PRC government wants to silence" UNLESS FACEBOOK OR TWITTER THINKS OTHERWISE said Assistant Attorney General for National Security Olsen.
Maybe some free-speech champion billionaire could step up and buy one of these companies, like Twitter, for example.
Or unless you piss off the governor of Florida with your political opinion. The right ain’t no better than the left on speech.
bevis: "The right ain’t no better than the left on speech."
LMAO. Sure. Let's ask all those CEOs, college professors, florists, and comedians that the Right has gotten fired. : )
Sure. And let’s talk about DeSantis and Disney and the Rays.
Nobody except Facebook or Twitter's ownership/management have any right to engage in any speech or expression on Facebook or Twitter, so there's no rights to defend there.
It is a little frightening to see the 'reach' of China into our country, to persecute critics using former US government DHS and law enforcement employees. This was very effective.
I'd worry who else they employed.