Ex-Pence adviser says Trump’s Fauci ad is a ‘gross’ example of a White House with ‘no regard for the truth’

Olivia Troye, a former member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, is calling the Trump campaign’s decision to use an edited clip of Dr. Anthony Fauci in a new ad “gross and upsetting and typical of a White House that has no regard for the truth.”

Before resigning in July, Troye served as Vice President Mike Pence’s homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, and was his lead staffer on the task force. She began speaking out against the Trump administration last month, releasing an ad with the Republican Voters Against Trump organization that slammed the president for not taking COVID-19 seriously.

Fauci is the nation’s top infectious disease expert, and for a new ad, the Trump campaign spliced together Fauci’s words in an attempt to make it sound like he was praising the president’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Fauci said on Sunday his words were used out of context and without his permission, and over the course of his career he has “never publicly endorsed any political candidate.” On Monday, he called on the campaign to take down the ad.

Troye was shocked by the ad, and in response she quickly filmed a new video for Republican Voters Against Trump, which was released on Monday night. In it, Troye explains that she worked side-by-side with Fauci on the coronavirus task force, and she “witnessed Donald Trump and senior White House officials routinely sideline and discredit Dr. Fauci, both privately and publicly, and now the Trump campaign is twisting Dr. Fauci’s words in a campaign ad for their own political gain.”

This is “gross and upsetting and typical of a White House that has no regard for the truth,” Troye continues. “For Donald Trump, it’s always about him. For Dr. Fauci, it’s always been about serving the American people. Join me as a Republican and former Trump administration staffer who is voting for Joe Biden.” Republican Voters Against Trump says the ad will air nationally during one of Trump’s favorite shows: Fox & Friends.

More stories from theweek.com
The Supreme Court deal is done
The winning re-election argument Trump could have made
Trump is shockingly bad at this

Source Article

Read more

The White House doctor didn’t come *close* to telling the truth about the President’s condition

On Saturday, White House physician Sean Conley said this when asked about President Donald Trump’s health and treatment:



a man wearing a suit and tie: Dr. Sean Conley, physician to President Donald Trump, briefs reporters at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., Sunday, Oct. 4, 2020. Trump was admitted to the hospital after contracting the coronavirus. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)


© Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Dr. Sean Conley, physician to President Donald Trump, briefs reporters at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., Sunday, Oct. 4, 2020. Trump was admitted to the hospital after contracting the coronavirus. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

“This morning the President is doing very well. … He is not on oxygen right now. He has not needed any today at all.”

Later in the day — like less than an hour after Conley’s statement — came a contradictory statement from a “source familiar with the President’s health” that said “the President’s vitals over the last 24 hours were very concerning and the next 48 hours will be critical in terms of his care.”

Asked about the discrepancy between the two statements on Sunday, Conley said this:

“I was trying to reflect the upbeat attitude that the team, the President in his course of illness has had. I didn’t want to give any information that might steer the course of illness in another direction, and in doing so it came off that we’re trying to hide something.”

What?

Like, WHAT!

Conley is a doctor. Not a press person. Not a campaign consultant. A doctor.

As such, it is not his job — or anything close to his job — to “reflect the upbeat attitude” of the President or anyone else. It’s his job to provide facts. Facts like: has the President needed supplemental oxygen? What is his temperature? What is his prognosis? You know, medical facts.

But, that wasn’t even the worst thing that Conley said. It’s this sentence that really tipped everything over the edge.

I didn’t want to give any information that might steer the course of illness in another direction, and in doing so it came off that we’re trying to hide something.

It’s hard to fathom what Conley was trying to say here. I’m not a doctor and even I know that the “course of the illness” is not impacted in any way shape or form by what a doctor says about it.

So, what is Conley talking about? My strong sense is that what he meant was that any negative information about Trump’s condition — aka the facts — would make the COVERAGE more negative. Which, again, is not Conley’s concern. Or, well, it shouldn’t be. Because, and I feel like I may have mentioned this before, he is a doctor and not a press secretary.

(White House communications director Alyssa Farah told PBS’ Yamiche Alcindor that Conley was trying to “project confidence” when he misled the public about Trump’s condition on Saturday. Right. Just as bad.)

Then, at the end, Conley gave up the game. He said he regretted that by not providing facts “it came off that we’re trying to hide something.”

No, it didn’t come off that way. That’s what happened. The White House — via its messenger Conley

Read more

Trump’s White House says critical race theory is anti-American. Here’s the truth.

Just before Labor Day, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought began a memo to federal agency heads with these words: “It has come to the President’s attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date ‘training’ government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda.” I doubt that President Donald Trump or Vought know specifically, but the memo apparently is referring to talking about “diversity training” or anti-racism training common in the private sector and for public employees. The memo singled out training in “critical race theory” and “white privilege” as examples of ideas “that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country.”

The memo singled out training in “critical race theory” and “white privilege” as examples of ideas “that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country.”

As a co-founder and current head of the nation’s first established program in critical race theory, the UCLA Law School Critical Race Studies Program, while dismayed at the caricature the memo represents, I recognize a teachable moment when I see it. Critical race theory is not racial demonization. Far from being anti-American, as Trump’s administration alleges, critical race theory aspires to the ideal of equality represented in our post-Civil War Constitution, an ideal we are far from achieving even 150 years later.

Critical race theory is a field of scholarship that arose in the legal academy in the 1980s, when a critical mass of African American and other law professors of color first coalesced. This first generation of critical race scholars sought to distinguish their ideas from those of liberal constitutional law scholars who put great faith in anti-discrimination laws and of far-left critical legal theory scholars who believed all law reform was designed simply to maintain the status quo.

Critical race theory both borrows from and departs from the liberals and the leftists in the legal academy. While the field is diverse, with many conversations and disagreements within it, critical race scholars rejected the nihilism that characterized the leftist critics who argued that equal rights served to legitimate ongoing subordination. Instead, critical race theory embraced the transformative vision of the long civil rights movement, replete with partial victories won through painful, protracted struggle, including the Reconstruction amendments to the Constitution after the Civil War and the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts of the 1960s.

Like the liberals, we recognize that those laws made a difference in the lives of those subordinated on the basis of race and national origin and represented the fruits of resistance to white domination. At the same time, we are more critical than the liberals about the limits of law to create institutional change. American history teaches us that white supremacy has a way of shape-shifting in response to law reforms, even when they are well-meaning.

This nation’s policing and police violence against Black and brown people illustrate what we mean. First, the roots of American policing are in militia-style slave patrols that

Read more