(NEW YORK) — The White House on Monday announced a new international air travel system starting in early November, requiring all foreign nationals traveling to the United States to be fully vaccinated and show proof of vaccination before boarding a U.S. bound plane — ending the separation of some families since March 2020.
The new system, along with the vaccine requirement, would include stepped up testing, contact tracing and masking, officials said.
For fully vaccinated international travelers, the 14-day quarantine would go away. The specific vaccines that qualify a traveler as “fully vaccinated” will be determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, according to Jeff Zients, the White House coronavirus response coordinator.
”This new system allows us to implement strict protocols to prevent the spread of COVID from passengers flying internationally into the United States or requiring adult foreign nationals traveling to the United States to be fully vaccinated. It’s based on public health. It requires fully vaccinated individuals. And so this is based on individuals rather than a country-based approach, so is a strong system,” Zients said.
The announcement came as President Joe Biden prepared to head to the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Monday and a day before he was to meet at the White House with U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
(WASHINGTON) — Russian President Vladimir Putin complained to President Joe Biden about calling him a “killer” in an ABC News interview, according to a new book.
“I’m upset you called me a killer,” Putin said to Biden on an April 13 phone call, Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa wrote in their new book, Peril.
Biden told Putin his comment, made in a March 16 interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, was “not something premeditated,” according to the book.
“I was asked a question. I gave an answer. It was an interview on a totally different topic,” Biden said, before he invited Putin to meet with him in person.
Stephanopoulos interviewed Woodward and Costa Monday on Good Morning America, in their first interview about the book’s contents.
The book, obtained by ABC News ahead of its Sept. 21 release, recounts the 2020 presidential election and the chaos of the final months of the Trump administration — before and after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot — based on more than 200 interviews with firsthand witnesses and participants.
Peril also chronicles the first several months of Biden’s presidency, detailing his administration’s efforts to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, early efforts to work with Congress and internal deliberations over the American withdrawal from Afghanistan.
This includes how Biden has apparently adjusted to life in the White House, which he reportedly called “the tomb” and likened to the Waldorf Astoria hotel.
“It was lonely. Cold. The virus made social events impossible, at least at the start,” Woodward and Costa wrote, adding that Biden preferred “relaxing with the grandkids back in Delaware.”
“Being upstairs at the White House feels like you’re staying at someone else’s house,” White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain is quoted as telling others, according to the book.
The book also describes how Biden and his aides reportedly refer to Trump in private: The president and his advisers “hated to utter Trump’s name,” and aides avoided using “the ‘T’ word,” the authors claim.
“Trump’s existence permeated the White House, even the residence. One night, Biden wandered into a room where a huge video screen covered the wall. To relax, Trump used to upload programs to virtually play the world’s most famous golf courses,” they wrote. “‘What a f—— a——,’ Biden once said as he surveyed the former president’s toys.”
Biden’s aides “noticed he could be prickly and tough at times and would walk into the Oval Office unhappy some mornings about another round of Trump talk on MSNBC’s pundit roundtable, ‘Morning Joe’,” Woodward and Costa wrote in the book.
Woodward and Costa claimed Biden’s aides worked to keep him away from “unscripted events or long interviews” to avoid gaffes, a “cocooning of the president” known as “the wall,” they wrote.
On Afghanistan, Biden eventually overruled Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in his decision to withdraw U.S. troops, after both secretaries suggested a phased pullout to try to encourage a political settlement with the Taliban, according to “Peril.”
“Our mission is to stop Afghanistan from being a base for attacking the homeland and US allies by al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, not to deliver a death blow to the Taliban,” Biden said in a National Security Council meeting, according to the book.
Biden “said he did not know what would come next. The outcome was unclear, he acknowledged,” they claimed in the book.
(WASHINGTON) — Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said Sunday that U.S. Central Command Gen. Kenneth McKenzie’s acknowledgement that the Aug. 29 drone strike near the Kabul airport was “a mistake” was the correct response.
“I thought what Gen. McKenzie did was right,” Mullen told ABC “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz.
Ten civilians were killed in the strike, which the U.S. believed was targeting a terrorist, but instead killed an aid worker, seven children and others in the area.
“We now assess that it is unlikely that the vehicle and those who died were associated with ISIS-Khorasan or were a direct threat to U.S. forces,” McKenzie said Friday.
“I offer my profound condolences to the family and friends of those who were killed,” he added.
“How can such a huge mistake happen?” Raddatz asked the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“We’ve done this for years … we’ve had drone strikes that were very effective over many years and didn’t kill any civilians and we’ve also had drone strikes which did,” Mullen said.
He added that the over-the-horizon-capability — or airstrikes that don’t require troops to be based in the country — is there, but the strike’s execution being in a “confused environment” contributed to the difficulty of the situation.
“And should there be accountability for this?” Raddatz asked Mullen.
“I absolutely think there should,” Mullen responded.
He also added that there should be accountability for the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, adding, “I hope that there is.”
Separately, Mullen also spoke about the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley in light of revelations in Washington Post journalists, Bob Woodward and Robert Costa’s new book, “Peril.” According to the book, Milley secretly reached out to China‘s military leaders in the waning months of Donald Trump’s presidency and assured them that Trump would not attack to stay in office.
Mullen echoed other leaders who said that communicating “with counterparts around the world is routine” and he added that he was encouraged the line of communication with China remained open during the tumultuous time.
“There was a time when we had no communications with China, or we’d have a problem with China, they’d cut off all mil-to-mil connections,” Mullen said.
However, Mullen said that the reported assurance Milley gave to China that he would call them in the event of a strike, wasn’t routine, and on that point, he told Raddatz, “Yes, well, I’m hopeful that actually — that part of it isn’t true.”
Mullen said that he was more concerned China would be worried about a U.S. nuclear attack.
“It speaks to the need to have these open communications, so that we don’t miscalculate,” he said.
Milley reportedly went so far as to make sure he was alerted if Trump ever took steps to launch an attack on China. As a military adviser to the president, he’s otherwise outside of the chain of command.
Mullen cited the extra precaution as “fairly routine … for something this serious.”
Mullen also said that he sympathized with the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“I don’t know if anyone has been in a more difficult situation than Mark Milley,” Mullen said. “I know him well enough to know that he would really try to do the best thing for our country. And I think he did that.”
(LOS ANGELES) — Efforts to combat misinformation intensified on Twitter during the days leading up to Tuesday’s recall election to replace California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who appears to have retained his gubernatorial seat, according to an ABC News projection of the election results.
Since the 2020 presidential election, there’s been more awareness of the damaging effects of the spread of misinformation on social media with fears that increasing numbers of people are engaging with false content.
The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, which provides record management and election services, said it took to Twitter to counter misleading information and provide context to viral posts leading up to the recall election. The department said it also used Twitter to clear up confusion over casting ballots, ballot status and the color of ballot boxes.
For example: in response to a viral photo reposted on Twitter showing an election worker wearing a “Trump 2020” hat and shirt, the department clarified on Tuesday that the person was later contacted and was “no longer working at the vote center.” The photo racked up more than 34,000 likes and more than 8,000 retweets by Thursday, according to statistics on the post, with some Twitter users debating the legality of an election worker wearing political clothing.
The department’s response also garnered notable engagement on Twitter and was referenced by other users, further spreading the update that the department removed the worker.
Mike Sanchez, spokesperson for the LA County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, said the worker broke the department’s internal policy requiring nonpartisan clothing for employees, adding that the worker was released after he refused to change.
First Draft director Claire Wardle said the department’s Twitter activity was “a very good sign” that organizations are making an effort to combat misinformation, even before it goes viral.
First Draft is an organization that describes itself as working to “protect communities from harmful misinformation” through knowledge, research and training.
Wardle said the department took an approach known as “prebunking,” which includes correcting false claims, answering questions early on and providing explanations.
“All of that is helping people get a much better sense about what to trust and what not to trust,” Wardle said.
Wardle said an important part of the process is to give context to posts that may not be fake, but could still be misleading and damaging.
On the weekend before the recall election, the department said it fielded numerous questions after an “equipment issue” reportedly caused some voters to have trouble casting their ballots.
Throughout the weekend, the department posted on Twitter that voters who encountered the issue were given provisional ballots and that the equipment was replaced. The department’s repeated reinforcement of accurate information may have helped resolve confusion on the issue, it says, preventing it from spiraling into full-fledged falsehoods.
Conservative radio host Larry Elder, the frontrunner to replace Newsom if recalled, made unsubstantiated claims of possible voter fraud during the recall election, saying there could be “shenanigans” similar to some unsubstantiated claims of a rigged 2020 presidential election.
The country clerk, in real-time on social media, addressed concerns or questions pertaining to the recall election, arguably helping to ward off their evolving into a misinformation wildfire spreading through the internet. The department said in one instance, it answered a Twitter user’s question about the equipment issue within five minutes. Other responses came several hours later or the next day.
Sanchez, in addition to being a spokesperson, led the team that monitored social media platforms during the recall election. He said while the majority of posts were general voting inquiries, the team took action when it identified misleading and inaccurate information.
“We provide resources and try to quell those who are aiming to mislead or misguide and — or in some cases interfere — with the election and the information that goes along with obviously educating voters,” Sanchez said.
Sanchez said the department has been actively monitoring and engaging with social media for years, including during the 2020 presidential election. Last year, the department was countering misinformation about ballots, he said, and even calming fears about fire alarms.
“These [social media platforms] are very powerful tools. Our voters are on them. We should be on them as well and leverage their ability to reach masses,” Sanchez said.
Twitter has made strong statements against election misinformation on its platform and has implemented a labeling policy. “However, the volume and speed at which misinformation has the potential to spread online means that this alone is not enough. Twitter said in January that it was piloting a new approach to addressing misinformation on the platform, alongside its labeling policy, to “broaden the range of voices” involved in the process.”
Wardle pointed to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection as a catalyst that may have influenced organizations to focus more on battling political misinformation. Wardle said the 2020 election and events that followed were an example of “the harm that can be done if you leave misinformation to flourish.”
“It’s a really critical time now to try and rebuild trust in the electoral system,” Wardle said.
While there is a spotlight on election misinformation this year, policing online misinformation is not a new strategy.
The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency launched its rumor control page ahead of last year’s presidential election, with the goal to help voters “distinguish between rumors and facts on election security issues.”
Public figures in key battleground states also used Twitter to dispel falsehoods during the presidential election.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel warned voters in 2020 about misinformation related to robocalls and voters with outstanding warrants. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office utilized an election task force last year, which also highlighted misleading information.
(AUSTIN, Texas) — Before 1973, fatal “back-alley” and “coat-hanger” procedures in places where abortion was illegal became emblematic of the impact of abortion bans.
But in modern times, those images have become obsolete with the use of medication abortion, advocates say.
This has become especially relevant in light of Texas’ new abortion law that bans the procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, making it inaccessible for many across the state.
“An abortion road trip is a thing of the past,” said Elisa Wells, co-founder and co-director of Plan C, an abortion research and pro-abortion rights advocacy group. “We have safe and effective medical technology in the form of abortion pills and online access to care that can deliver it directly to your doorstep. This is the 21st century and everybody deserves the same access to care that we have through mainstream medical channels.”
In a medication abortion, patients take two pills: mifepristone, which stops the production of progesterone, and misoprostol, which causes the abortion. Without progesterone, uterine lining breaks down and a pregnancy is prevented from continuing, according to Planned Parenthood.
The regimen is approved by the FDA to end pregnancies up to 10 weeks.
Mifepristone is only supplied to health care providers who meet certain qualifications and is recommended by the FDA to be taken by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber to ensure safe use.
But, advocates say, people still seek abortions when governments restrict access to the procedures, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research organization.
With no other options for a legal abortion, some feel forced into unsupervised or illegal tactics to obtain one — which could include obtaining medication through methods like utilizing a telehealth appointment with a provider in a state where it is legal, having pills mailed via international organizations on the internet, or crossing the border to Mexico, where misoprostol is sold in pharmacies as an ulcer medication.
Safety concerns
Medication abortion with both mifepristone and misoprostol is effective more than 95% of the time, according to the Guttmacher Institute. A 2013 study of 47,283 subjects found 0.3% were hospitalized for complications, such as vaginal bleeding, pelvic pain or infection.
In medical settings where it is legal, doctors say it is safe for patients to take the pills and have an abortion at home. For example, some Planned Parenthood locations have begun offering at-home services via telehealth where that is legal.
A recent study by Ushma Upadhyay, an associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, found evidence that medication abortion care administered online via telehealth providers is feasible and safe.
Still, there are some medical concerns about obtaining pills to self-manage an abortion outside of doctors’ guidance. International pills haven’t been checked by U.S. authorities for quality, and people who acquire misoprostol on their own may not know the right dosages without the guidance of a clinician.
Misoprostol, which is sold across the border without mifepristone, is 85% successful in inducing abortion in the first trimester on its own, according to the International Women’s Health Coalition. A 2019 research article in the Obstetrics & Gynecology journal found that misoprostol alone is an effective, safe option for people seeking an abortion in their first trimester.
Overall, however, advocates say the risk level is low.
“It (may not be) legally safe, but it is medically safe. And I think that accessing these medications in an unregulated way may be the only recourse for many people, the only way to have reproductive autonomy,” Upadhyay told ABC News.
Legal questions
While studies indicate medical concerns are relatively limited, there are legal questions about accessing medication abortion.
International providers who operate on the internet, for example, often skirt around local legislation restricting abortion access.
Thirty-four states only allow physicians to help patients obtain medication abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Nineteen states require physicians be physically present with the patient, which essentially bans the use of telemedicine to prescribe the medication.
Meanwhile, the new Texas law, which the Supreme Court allowed to go into effect but is being legally challenged, authorizes private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion — but not the patient themself.
With that, it’s unclear how lawsuits against online providers would fare in Texas — but the law implies that doctors from out of state, online providers or people who drive others to get an abortion may be at risk if a fetal heartbeat had been detected and known at the time of the abortion.
“If an individual were to get an abortion, that individual would not be penalized, but everyone who was involved in that patient’s care would be at risk of getting sued by someone who’s part of the anti-abortion movement,” said Dr. Meera Shah, the chief medical officer at Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic.
Restricted access
Self-managed abortion has been pushed into the spotlight by the Texas law, which is the most restrictive abortion ban to go into effect in decades.
“This is driving patients into a panic,” said Shah. “Our health centers in Texas are getting inundated with phone calls from patients, trying to figure out where they can get care or how they can get care.”
Before the Texas ban directly restricted access to abortion, other states had made it difficult for abortion clinics to remain open, forcing anyone in search of an in-clinic procedure or an in-person physician consultation to travel long distances for an available provider.
Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), a research group at the University of California, San Francisco’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health found that there are at least 27 “abortion deserts” in the country — cities with populations of over 100,000 where residents must travel more than 100 miles to reach a clinic.
ANSIRH has also found that denying people an abortion can cause economic hardship and insecurity. People denied an abortion are more likely to stay with a violent or abusive partner and are more likely to raise the child alone.
“What’s so important is to focus on people who are the most underserved: those are the people who won’t know about Aid Access, won’t be able to travel, low income populations and immigrant populations, people with limited English proficiency,” Upadhyay said.
“These are the people that are going to end up having to carry to term because they just have no other choice,” she added.
(WASHINGTON) — The “Justice for J6” rally was billed as a protest for defendants being detained in connection with the January insurrection at the Capitol.
At least 610 individuals have been federally charged for their involvement in the Jan. 6 riot at the United States Capitol, according to the Department of Justice. Most of the roughly 60 who remain behind bars are suspects prosecutors and judges have identified as posing a credible and ongoing threat to the public’s safety.
Many of the same far-right groups and individuals who promoted the original Jan. 6 rally-turned insurrection this time warned supporters to avoid the demonstration at all costs. Former President Donald Trump has called it a “setup” but also released a statement supporting those charged.
With the House and Senate both out, no lawmakers were at the Capitol on Saturday. But preventative security measures were taken, including the reinstallation of temporary fencing around the Capitol complex.
Latest developments:
Man with knife arrested, Capitol Police say
Rally organizer lays out ‘ground rules’
Counterprotesters arrive ahead of rally
US Capitol Police swear in law enforcement partners ahead of rally
Capitol Police prepared in case of violence but hopeful for peaceful event
Here is how the news is developing today. All times Eastern. Check back for updates.
Sep 18, 2:05 pm
Rally concludes without any known major incidents
The “Justice for J6” rally wrapped up Saturday afternoon after about an hour of speeches, without any major known incidents.
Authorities had warned of possible threats of violence at the event, and Capitol Police officers could be seen in riot gear standing on the perimeter of the crowd as people gathered in front of the U.S. Capitol.
Metropolitan Police Department Chief Robert Contee also said in a video message Saturday that the department had security “covered” for the event and was ensuring that people could “peacefully express their First Amendment rights.”
Capitol Police said they arrested a man for a weapons violation shortly before the rally kicked off. He allegedly had a knife. Additional details were not immediately available.
No other arrests have been reported at this time.
The Capitol Police Civil Disturbance Unit also responded to a group of protestors and counterprotestors near the Capitol and “separated the groups without incident,” police said.
Sep 18, 1:34 pm
Man with knife arrested, Capitol Police say
Right before the rally kicked off, Capitol Police say they arrested a man with a knife for a weapons violation.
The arrest happened at 12:40 p.m., authorities said. No other details were immediately provided.
Knives are one of over a dozen prohibited items and activities on Capitol Grounds, along with firearms, mace, ammunition and other items.
In the days leading up to the rally, DC Police posted signage in the area of the rally that stated: “All firearms prohibited within 1000 feet of this sign.”
Sep 18, 1:11 pm
Rally organizer lays out ‘ground rules’
Rally organizer Matt Braynard laid out “some ground rules” at the start of the protest, urging the crowd to be respectful of law enforcement.
“There are uniformed officers here who I demand that you respect, you are kind to, you’re respectful to and you’re obedient to,” he said. “They’re here to keep us safe.”
He condemned the violence of the insurrection while calling for transparency in the investigation of the Jan. 6 riot.
“Anybody who engaged in that kind of violence or property destruction that day deserves to be tried with a speedy trial,” he said.
“This is about the many people who were there that day who have not been charged with violence, not been accused of assaulting a police officer or destroying property and the disparate treatment they received,” he continued.
At least 610 people have been federally charged in connection with the insurrection. About 60 remain behind bars, most of whom are suspects prosecutors and judges have identified as posing a credible threat to public safety based on either their alleged violent assaults against police or role in planning the riot.
-ABC News’ Alexander Mallin
Sep 18, 11:45 am
Counterprotesters arrive ahead of rally
Counterprotesters could be seen gathering near the Capitol ahead of Saturday’s rally, toting signs and flags.
One man had a hand-painted sign with the word “Loser” on it, which he told the Associated Press referred to former President Donald Trump.
A woman could also be seen carrying Black Lives Matter flags.
It is unclear how many protesters and counterprotesters will show up for the event, though organizers have secured a permit for 700 attendees.
Sep 18, 10:54 am
US Capitol Police swear in law enforcement partners ahead of rally
Hours before the rally is set to take place, U.S. Capitol Police swore in local, state and federal law enforcement partners Saturday morning, giving the officers jurisdiction in the areas surrounding the Capitol.
Capitol Police said Friday they are working with over 27 agencies from around the region to secure the event.
Officers from Fairfax County, Virginia, to Montgomery County, Maryland, are supposed to be on hand to help Capitol Police.
-ABC News’ Luke Barr
Sep 18, 10:12 am
Capitol Police prepared in case of violence but hopeful for peaceful event
U.S. Capitol Police are prepared for potential violence at the “Justice for J6” rally, though are hopeful Saturday’s event “remains peaceful,” U.S. Capitol Police Chief J. Tom Manger said.
“There have been some threats of violence associated” with the rally, Manger told reporters at a press briefing Friday. “We have a strong plan in place to ensure that it remains peaceful and that if violence does occur, that we can stop it as quickly as possible.”
Capitol Police leadership has been working over the last eight months “to ensure that we don’t have a repeat of January 6,” Manger added.
Manger told ABC News’ Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott he is most concerned about violent conflicts between protesters and counterprotesters.
Fencing started going up around the Capitol complex earlier this week as part of an “enhanced security posture” to shield the Capitol from any violence, authorities said.
(WASHINGTON) — Law enforcement leaders were unified in their message on Friday: We are prepared for the “Justice for J6” rally.
The event on Saturday, billed as a protest against defendants being detained in connection with the Jan. 6 insurrection, has law enforcement on high alert as they seek to avoid the kind of violence that ensued during the Capitol riot.
“There have been some threats of violence associated with this events for tomorrow. And we have a strong plan in place to ensure that it remains peaceful and that if violence does occur, that we can stop it as quickly as possible,” U.S. Capitol Police Chief J. Tom Manger told reporters at a press conference on Friday.
“Over the last eight months, the leadership of the U.S. Capitol Police Department has been preparing, working to ensure that we don’t have a repeat of January 6,” Manger continued.
Fencing around the Capitol complex starting going up on Wednesday night, Capitol Police said, as part of the “enhanced security posture” to shield the Capitol from any violence that could break out.
Manger told ABC News’ Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott he is most concerned about violent conflicts between protesters and counterprotesters.
The Department of Homeland Security on Thursday warned that some individuals involved in or opposed to the rally “may seek to engage in violence” but said there was no “specific or credible plot associated with the event,” according to a bulletin shared with state and local law enforcement and obtained by ABC News.
There was, however, a caveat.
“Lone offenders and small groups of individuals can mobilize to violence with little-to-no warning, particularly in response to confrontational encounters with perceived opponents or calls for escalation by key influencers,” the bulletin says. “The likely use of encrypted or closed communication platforms by those seeking to commit violence challenges law enforcement’s ability to identify and disrupt potential plotting.”
In early September, some social media users “discussed storming the US Capitol on the night before the rally, and one user commented on kidnapping an identified member of Congress,” the bulletin says. House offices were encouraged to work remotely Friday, according to a Thursday email from the House Administration Committee and obtained by ABC News.
Melissa Smislova, the deputy under secretary for intelligence and enterprise readiness at the DHS, told attendees at the Homeland Security Enterprise Forum on Tuesday that the department expects 700 people in Washington for the event, the same number permitted to attend.
Top DHS officials, including Homeland security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, have said they’ve stepped up their communications with state and local partners in advance of the event.
(WASHINGTON) — The Food and Drug Administration’s independent advisory committee will convene in open session Friday to review the latest data submitted by Pfizer and discuss whether a booster dose is safe enough for widespread use and whether it’s necessary and effective at improving protection levels against COVID-19.
Their vote will be non-binding — the FDA is not required to follow the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee’s (VRBPAC) recommendations — but they generally do so.
After that vote, the FDA will decide whether they will formally amend their current vaccine approval for Pfizer. Next week the matter heads to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s independent advisory panel (ACIP), where that panel will weigh on a more granular level who should get a booster and when? The CDC director will then formally sign off on whatever ACIP recommends.
Friday morning’s opening remarks are set to kick off at 8:30 a.m. ET, followed by introductions by the FDA, presentations from CDC representatives, a discussion about booster protection and a presentation from Pfizer executives who will make the case for why boosters are appropriate.
After a public hearing portion in the afternoon and a question-and-answer session on both Pfizer’s and the FDA’s presentations, the committee will debate the issue for roughly two hours. A vote is expected at about 4:45 p.m. ET, if they stay on schedule.
The meeting Friday comes amid a contentious debate on the timeline for boosters, with some health experts vehement that the data and timing is still premature.
Two top FDA officials who are leaving the agency later this year publicly waded into the debate on Monday, splitting from the agency and arguing in a scientific journal that it was too soon to give booster shots to the general public since the vaccines still offer strong protection against serious disease.
Both are scheduled to attend Friday’s discussion. One of them, the director of the agency’s office of vaccines research and review, is supposed to give an overarching introduction of the topic for the FDA in the beginning of the day.
Also joining Friday’s meeting is the head of Israel’s public health services, Dr. Sharon Alroy Preis, who is set to present data on booster protection against COVID infection and severe disease.
In a review of Pfizer’s data, also released Wednesday, the FDA appeared to be noncommittal on the necessity for boosters. The agency pointed out that Pfizer’s efficacy data could be hampered by the limitations of studying boosters in real-world situations, which can introduce complicating factors.
“There are many potentially relevant studies, but FDA has not independently reviewed or verified the underlying data or their conclusions,” the agency wrote in its briefing.
Naming no one — but nodding to those lingering concerns — Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla penned an open letter on Thursday making the case for booster shots.
“This week we are approaching another pivotal moment in our ongoing fight against the virus,” Bourla writes of Friday’s FDA advisory committee. “Since the start of this pandemic, Pfizer and BioNTech have pledged to follow the science and keep people informed about our progress to help bring an end to this global health crisis. We have stayed true to our commitment of full transparency without selectively cherry-picking data.”
(WASHINGTON) — A lawyer whose firm represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the 2016 presidential election was indicted Thursday by special counsel John Durham on a single charge of making a false statement to the FBI.
Michael Sussmann, an attorney for the Perkins Coie law firm who previously represented the Democratic National Committee following the hacking of its servers by Russia during the 2016 campaign, is accused of lying “about the capacity in which he was providing allegations to the FBI” when he met with a top lawyer from the bureau in September 2016 and provided him information about potential ties between a Russian bank and computer servers in the Trump Organization.
“Specifically, SUSSMANN state falsely that he was not doing his work on the aforementioned allegations “for any client,” which led the FBI General Counsel (James A. Baker) to understand that SUSSMANN was acting as a good citizen merely passing along information, not as a paid advocate or political operative,” prosecutors write in the indictment.
They allege instead that Sussmamn intentionally misled the FBI general counsel because he was acting at the time on behalf of an unnamed tech executive, an “U.S. internet company” and Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign.
Prior to his indictment Thursday, Sussmann’s attorneys provided a statement to ABC News maintaining his innocence.
“Mr. Sussmann has committed no crime,” attorneys Sean Berkowitz and Michael Bosworth of the law firm Latham and Watkins said. “Any prosecution here would be baseless, unprecedented, and an unwarranted deviation from the apolitical and principled way in which the Department of Justice is supposed to do its work.”
“We are confident that if Mr. Sussmann is charged, he will prevail at trial and vindicate his good name,” they added.
Durham was appointed by former Attorney General William Barr in May 2019 to investigate allegations of misconduct by members of the FBI and the intelligence community in their investigation of potential ties between Russia and former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign for the presidency. Before his resignation, Barr appointed Durham as special counsel extending his tenure into the Biden administration.
While Durham’s probe has long since lapsed the total duration of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, prior to Thursday he had yielded only one indictment against a lower-level FBI lawyer who admitted to doctoring an email used in seeking surveillance against a former aide to Trump’s campaign. That lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, was sentenced to probation earlier this year.
Durham has been tasked with creating a report outlining his findings, though it will be up to Attorney General Merrick Garland to determine whether to make those findings public. Garland has said publicly he has no intention of interfering in Durham’s work.
The indictment alleges Sussmann began in 2016 working with a U.S. tech executive and other cyber researchers in coordination with the Clinton campaign to assemble “white papers” on a potential communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russian-owned Alfa Bank. Sussmann later provided Baker with the documents in a Sept. 19, 2016 meeting where he is alleged to have made the false statement about who he was acting on behalf of at the time.
The connections were later examined by the FBI, but not substantiated.
In a 2017 deposition with House lawmakers, Sussmann said that he requested the meeting on behalf of a client who was a cybersecurity expert that held data he said showed ties between Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization. According to a source familiar with the matter, his legal team denied in meetings with Durham’s team that his meeting with Baker was coordinated or on behalf of members of Clinton’s campaign.
The meeting between Sussman and Baker occurred more than a month after the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation — looking into whether people associated with the Trump campaign were coordinating, wittingly or unwittingly, with the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 campaign — was opened on July 31.
Days earlier, on July 27, 2016, then-candidate Trump said publicly at a campaign event, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the more than 30,000 emails that are missing.” This was an apparent reference to Clinton emails that had been stored on a private server during the time she had served as secretary of state.
In the spring of 2016, Russian military intelligence had hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee. Emails and documents stolen by the Russians had already been leaked in June and July of 2016 and Trump continued to encourage more leaks as they continued throughout the campaign.
The New York Times, which first reported news of Durham’s plans to seek an indictment against Sussmann, also reported that Garland has declined to overrule Durham’s decision.
Sussmann’s legal team has communicated to Durham’s team that they believe his case will fall apart under scrutiny for several different reasons, a source said. They have noted that Sussmann’s alleged statement to Baker was made nearly five years ago and in a private meeting with no witnesses. And they argue the statements identified by Durham are immaterial in that they likely had no significant impact on any actual investigation being conducted by the FBI at the time.
In the indictment, however, prosecutors contend the statement was material “because, among other reasons, Sussmann’s false statement misled the FBI general counsel and other FBI personnel concerning the political nature of his work and deprived the FBI of information that might have permitted it more fully to assess and uncover the origins of the relevant data and technical analysis, including the identities and motivations of Sussmann’s clients.”
(WASHINGTON) — Customs and Border Protection encountered over 200,000 attempted crossings in August, fewer than the two-decade high seen in July, but still far more than in past years.
While the Biden administration has asked for patience, some Republican lawmakers are sounding the alarm over what they consider a continuing crisis.
The 208,887 of apprehensions in August were fewer than in July, when 212,672 people were encountered crossing the border — eclipsing every year since 2000. But last year, CBP made 50,014 apprehensions, just a fraction of this August’s number. In 2019, there were 62,707 apprehensions and the number was even smaller — 46,719 — in 2018.
According to the data released by CBP on Wednesday, 25% of the crossings were made by people who had already been encountered — leaving 156,641 unique encounters last month.
The number of unaccompanied minors has remained steady since July, at nearly 19,000 each month. In August, more than 1,400 unaccompanied children a day, on average, were in CBP custody — up 100 from July.
CBP says fentanyl seizures rose 34%, along with a 36% increase in pounds of cocaine seized from July to August. Fentanyl seizures are also up 50% so far this year, with more than 10,000 pounds confiscated, according to the data.
Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas on Monday downplayed the numbers.
“Once again, we have a plan and we’re executing it. The situation doesn’t change with a flick of a switch, it requires a tremendous amount of work,” he said during a fireside chat with ABC News at the Homeland Security Enterprise Forum.
But ranking member on the Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, was not so optimistic.
“Once again, CBP operational statistics show that we are seeing the worst unlawful migration crisis in more than twenty years,” Portman said in a statement on Wednesday night. “The Border Patrol has now made more than a million apprehensions of unlawful migrants since President Biden took office. CBP reported more than 208,000 total encounters at the border in August, quadrupling the number from last August.”
Former President Donald Trump’s Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf warned that Border Patrol agents will soon reach their breaking point if crossings continue at the current rate.
“President Biden’s failed border-security policies are simply unsustainable. The men and women of federal law enforcement cannot continue to deal with these crisis-level numbers. They are already overwhelmed and overburdened. The breakdown is coming,” Wolf said in a statement
The administration, however, has framed the drop in encounters since July as a sign things are moving in the right direction.
“The men and women at CBP continue to step up to meet the demands of high numbers of encounters at our southern border. CBP recorded 2 percent fewer encounters in August than July,” Acting CBP Commissioner Troy Miller said in a release. “The vast majority of single adults encountered in August, along with a substantial share of families, continued to be expelled under the CDC’s Title 42 authority.”
