Per Woodward's recordings POTUS Knew Early That COVID19 Was Very Deadly

[Farm93]

I will say, that while I doubt it would have made a difference, I would have preferred he released them earlier. Maybe I'm wrong and it saves lives. This was saved for book sales.

And, more importantly, November.

BTW, what exactly does Woodward mean when he says it wasn't until May that he was satisfied "that Trump's comments were based on reliable information."  Seriously . . . what does that even mean?  The statement getting all the run (rightfully) from 2006 and others is the President knowing the virus was serious but wanting to downplay it to avoid panic.  What "reliable information" needs to be confirmed with respect to that?

President 45 has a tendency to lie and boast, especially in private calls.   So it is not out of the question that his statements were not really true.
For example, the President apparently discloses military secrets too.   Let's use that one to show Woodward's potential dilemma

[font=Georgia, Cambria, "Times New Roman", Times, serif]“I have built a nuclear — a weapons system that nobody’s ever had in this country before. We have stuff that you haven’t even seen or heard about. We have stuff that Putin and Xi have never heard about before. There’s nobody — what we have is incredible,”[/font]

Is it true that the USA has a new weapon that Putin and Xi don't know about?
Is it true that President Trump alone built (or authorized to build) this weapon system?
If no one has heard about it, and therefore would be as classified as implied, how would Woodward verify that statement?
Most weapons systems take decades to develop, so what exactly could President Trump build that nobody ever had in the country before?
How incredible could it really be?
This military boasting example appears to be tied to the W76-2 Warhead.   It is a nice gap filling warhead, but far from incredible, far from the type of thing that would really worry Xi or Putin.

So using that example.   Woodward would look silly running out to the news shows with each and every kernel of information Trump leaked.  And FWIW - by mid-February it was known (outside the USA) that the coronavirus was particularly contagious and deadly.  

The real story was that Trump was intentionally downplaying the severity of the disease, but sorry by late-March that too was obvious.   Those with any level of experience with medical trials, science, math or any good friends living in Asia or Europe knew by late March that POTUS45 was out of step with the global medical community.

[Goose]

Even if one believes that Trump did not inform the public about the danger that the COVID-19 virus could pose in order to "avoid panic", that can't explain why he did not actively pass that information on to the State and County authorities. Since the local level would see the disease first, giving them a warning seems only prudent. It may be that in this day and age the idea they could also keep it confidential is off the table, but it is very useful to pass a warning order to the troops if you expect them to respond quickly and properly. If it never happens, no harm done.

I think it probable that Trump really just didn't believe it. He had been told that it could happen, but not that it had already happened. If he did believe it was going to happen for certain, withholding the warning from the States makes no sense. It could only make things worse. Maybe Cuomo would have believed De Blasio from the start and not waited three days, for instance. The other possibility is that Trump figured he was doomed anyway if it did happen so try denial.

[chrisk]

Even if one believes that Trump did not inform the public about the danger that the COVID-19 virus could pose in order to "avoid panic", that can't explain why he did not actively pass that information on to the State and County authorities. Since the local level would see the disease first, giving them a warning seems only prudent. It may be that in this day and age the idea they could also keep it confidential is off the table, but it is very useful to pass a warning order to the troops if you expect them to respond quickly and properly. If it never happens, no harm done.

I think it probable that Trump really just didn't believe it. He had been told that it could happen, but not that it had already happened. If he did believe it was going to happen for certain, withholding the warning from the States makes no sense. It could only make things worse. Maybe Cuomo would have believed De Blasio from the start and not waited three days, for instance. The other possibility is that Trump figured he was doomed anyway if it did happen so try denial.

I think he did not want his finger prints on strong actions such as those imposed by other countries that had been hit earlier.

[fullmetal]

How much of Trump's base knows who Bob Woodward is?  How many of them care?  Isn't he just part of the "mainstream media" to them?  

I honestly doubt this would have moved the needle back in Feb.  It's only shocking to some of us now because we've had months of Trump's words and actions that run counter to this testimony.  I don't think it would have been as shocking for Trump to say this in Feb and then proceed to act otherwise starting in March -- that's just par for the course on his part.

[Farm93]

Even if one believes that Trump did not inform the public about the danger that the COVID-19 virus could pose in order to "avoid panic", that can't explain why he did not actively pass that information on to the State and County authorities. Since the local level would see the disease first, giving them a warning seems only prudent. It may be that in this day and age the idea they could also keep it confidential is off the table, but it is very useful to pass a warning order to the troops if you expect them to respond quickly and properly. If it never happens, no harm done.

I think it probable that Trump really just didn't believe it. He had been told that it could happen, but not that it had already happened. If he did believe it was going to happen for certain, withholding the warning from the States makes no sense. It could only make things worse. Maybe Cuomo would have believed De Blasio from the start and not waited three days, for instance. The other possibility is that Trump figured he was doomed anyway if it did happen so try denial.

I will go with USA hubris couple with stubbornness.

Trump likely did believe the "China virus" thing was deadly...IN CHINA.
He incorrectly assumed that the virus would likely stay in China and/or Asia.
He then made a bet that it would not impact the USA in any meaningful way and therefore made a confident declaration that everything would be fine in the USA.  It was a reasonable bet given recent virus history.
If correct, downplaying would avoid an election year distractions and would keep the stock market soaring to new heights.
So all logical enough IMHO.   Not super presidential, but in the predictable realm for President Trump.

However, he also refuses to admit he made bad calls.  (Remember the hurricane path map with a sharpie mark)
By late April it was pretty clear he bet incorrectly, but no way he'd admit that.
So instead he doubled down on the downplay path and stated to Woodward (and presumably others) that downplaying was still the correct strategy.

I would wish for a different approach, but I understand how this path became our reality.

[lex24]

I gave up trying to figure out the “why” with Trump a long time ago.  I think a “normal” President would have discussed it with medical advisors, staff etc and figured out a message that would address the facts, set forth the appropriate concern, without showing any sign of “panic”.

[akiddoc]

Could have released the audio in Feb, doubt it would have changed anything besides being a headline for a day or two.

Just so I understand...you're saying that the noted, celebrated truthteller and revealer of odious, perfidious presidential wrongdoings journalist Bob Woodward would not have had an impact on the public perception of and response to the COVID pandemic had he released Trump's lies to the public thirty seconds after he recorded them?  You think it wouldn't have had an impact on Congress, on the media, on the CDC, on the public?  Particularly since a of immense proportions portion of the liberal Elite, the conservative Elite, the middle-of-the-road Elite, the Media Elite, the Medical Elite and the Political Elite hate his guts and have a massive interest in removing him from office no matter what?

Have to disagree with you.

There is almost nothing that could have been released that would have swayed Trump supporters from following his public pronouncements. There is nothing that will change 40% of the adults in the country from approving of everything he does and says. Nothing. They would have said and thought the tape was fabricated and not real. Trump certainly wouldn't have changed his tune. And there was plenty of info out there that it was spread through droplets and aerosol. I'll bet 30% of the adults in this country still believe it's all made up.

[Mick]

Could have released the audio in Feb, doubt it would have changed anything besides being a headline for a day or two.

Just so I understand...you're saying that the noted, celebrated truthteller and revealer of odious, perfidious presidential wrongdoings journalist Bob Woodward would not have had an impact on the public perception of and response to the COVID pandemic had he released Trump's lies to the public thirty seconds after he recorded them?  You think it wouldn't have had an impact on Congress, on the media, on the CDC, on the public?  Particularly since a of immense proportions portion of the liberal Elite, the conservative Elite, the middle-of-the-road Elite, the Media Elite, the Medical Elite and the Political Elite hate his guts and have a massive interest in removing him from office no matter what?

Have to disagree with you.

There is almost nothing that could have been released that would have swayed Trump supporters from following his public pronouncements. There is nothing that will change 40% of the adults in the country from approving of everything he does and says. Nothing. They would have said and thought the tape was fabricated and not real. Trump certainly wouldn't have changed his tune. And there was plenty of info out there that it was spread through droplets and aerosol. I'll bet 30% of the adults in this country still believe it's all made up.

I disagree.  I think if Woodward had released it at the time, it would remove a level of plausible deniability, and would have gotten a lot more people off the dime.  Ideally, it would have armed Trump's democratic opponents so they would have modified their behavior.  I think it would have made an enormous difference from a highly plausible source, literally the opposite of Trump's implausibility crusade and would have exposed the lies that Trump tells in a much more substantive way.

[OutsiderFan]

When you have an administration that orders intelligence assessments to be changed to help the POTUS's political fortunes, rather than protect the interests of the United States and its citizens, releasing the tapes in March wouldn't have made a shit bit of difference. The only reason he told Woodward what he did was so he would look smart and informed. He couldn't even grasp how insane it would be to go on camera in February saying Covid was no big deal, when he was being recorded for a book, completely contradicting himself. All he could do was think in the immediate moment what his fragile ego needed.

He could say the Earth is flat one day and a whole media machine would go into overdrive to claim the notion is true. Then he could say he was kidding the next day and that same media machine would find a way to fall in line again.  What is insane is that there are people who see the dishonesty and duplicity happen, and the cost to their fellow citizens and country, constantly, and not only have no problem with it, it's the feature they like and not considered a bug.

Mick, applying your rational thought to irrational people doesn't work.

[Goose]

I will go with USA hubris couple with stubbornness.



Trump likely did believe the "China virus" thing was deadly...IN CHINA.

He incorrectly assumed that the virus would likely stay in China and/or Asia.

He then made a bet that it would not impact the USA in any meaningful way and therefore made a confident declaration that everything would be fine in the USA.  It was a reasonable bet given recent virus history.

If correct, downplaying would avoid an election year distractions and would keep the stock market soaring to new heights.

So all logical enough IMHO.   Not super presidential, but in the predictable realm for President Trump.



However, he also refuses to admit he made bad calls.  (Remember the hurricane path map with a sharpie mark)

By late April it was pretty clear he bet incorrectly, but no way he'd admit that.

So instead he doubled down on the downplay path and stated to Woodward (and presumably others) that downplaying was still the correct strategy.



I would wish for a different approach, but I understand how this path became our reality.

I pretty much totally agree with this analysis. Trump was perfectly capable of believing the virus was deadly IN CHINA, but that it wouldn't make it to the USA. As you point out, that wasn't totally absurd. Several recent "serious" virus outbreaks didn't. However, the "presidential" thing to do would have been to pass the word to States what the threat MAY be and make a plan to respond if the virus did become significant in the US. He could have done that without risking his bull market. Unfortunately, it apparently didn't occur to him to do so.

[teejers1]

I will go with USA hubris couple with stubbornness.



Trump likely did believe the "China virus" thing was deadly...IN CHINA.

He incorrectly assumed that the virus would likely stay in China and/or Asia.

He then made a bet that it would not impact the USA in any meaningful way and therefore made a confident declaration that everything would be fine in the USA.  It was a reasonable bet given recent virus history.

If correct, downplaying would avoid an election year distractions and would keep the stock market soaring to new heights.

So all logical enough IMHO.   Not super presidential, but in the predictable realm for President Trump.



However, he also refuses to admit he made bad calls.  (Remember the hurricane path map with a sharpie mark)

By late April it was pretty clear he bet incorrectly, but no way he'd admit that.

So instead he doubled down on the downplay path and stated to Woodward (and presumably others) that downplaying was still the correct strategy.



I would wish for a different approach, but I understand how this path became our reality.

I pretty much totally agree with this analysis. Trump was perfectly capable of believing the virus was deadly IN CHINA, but that it wouldn't make it to the USA. As you point out, that wasn't totally absurd. Several recent "serious" virus outbreaks didn't. However, the "presidential" thing to do would have been to pass the word to States what the threat MAY be and make a plan to respond if the virus did become significant in the US. He could have done that without risking his bull market. Unfortunately, it apparently didn't occur to him to do so.

I've now read the additional responses and still remain confused.  Trump tells Woodward in February words to effect of "I know the virus is serious but I'm downplaying it to avoid panic."  In rebutting critics who said he should have revealed this info sooner, Woodward replies:  it wasn't until May that he was satisfied "that Trump's comments were based on reliable information."  

WTH does that mean?  Either Trump said it or not in February.  What further "reliable information" did Woodward think he needed . . . that the virus was, in fact, serious?  [If so, that was already out there, certainly way before May.  But really, that's not even "the story" - the story is Trump believed A but told People B.].

Again, Woodward's explanation strikes me as a complete non-sequitur.  

Just come correct and say book sales and November.  
At least then you don't put yourself in the President's company by coming across as a self-interested liar (just the former!).

[BostonCard]

I've now read the additional responses and still remain confused.  Trump tells Woodward in February words to effect of "I know the virus is serious but I'm downplaying it to avoid panic."  In rebutting critics who said he should have revealed this info sooner, Woodward replies:  it wasn't until May that he was satisfied "that Trump's comments were based on reliable information."  

WTH does that mean?  Either Trump said it or not in February.  What further "reliable information" did Woodward think he needed . . . that the virus was, in fact, serious?  [If so, that was already out there, certainly way before May.  But really, that's not even "the story" - the story is Trump believed A but told People B.].

Again, Woodward's explanation strikes me as a complete non-sequitur.  

Just come correct and say book sales and November.  
At least then you don't put yourself in the President's company by coming across as a self-interested liar (just the former!).

I agree with you.  I know that you generally want to report unsubstantiated information from most people, but the President generally falls into a different category.  It seems generally acknowledged that a President's pronouncement are newsworthy in and of themselves.  So I don't think it would have required some confirmation for Woodward to announce that Trump has privately admitted that he thinks the virus is a big deal.

One minor quibble, I'm not sure that releasing the info now hurts Trump that much.  Remember, earlier this week everyone was in a tizzy because Trump had called fallen soldiers "losers".  I think this new info is probably less damaging to Trump than the comments about soldiers, and, as is typical, this "scandal" has elbowed out reports of those earlier comments.

BC

[Mick]

When you have an administration that orders intelligence assessments to be changed to help the POTUS's political fortunes, rather than protect the interests of the United States and its citizens, releasing the tapes in March wouldn't have made a shit bit of difference. The only reason he told Woodward what he did was so he would look smart and informed. He couldn't even grasp how insane it would be to go on camera in February saying Covid was no big deal, when he was being recorded for a book, completely contradicting himself. All he could do was think in the immediate moment what his fragile ego needed.

He could say the Earth is flat one day and a whole media machine would go into overdrive to claim the notion is true. Then he could say he was kidding the next day and that same media machine would find a way to fall in line again.  What is insane is that there are people who see the dishonesty and duplicity happen, and the cost to their fellow citizens and country, constantly, and not only have no problem with it, it's the feature they like and not considered a bug.

Mick, applying your rational thought to irrational people doesn't work.

I think it would have the same effect that Joseph Welch's interchange with Senator McCarthy's had.  Just a reminder:

On June 9, 1954, the 30th day of the Army–McCarthy hearings, Welch challenged Roy Cohn to provide U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr. with McCarthy's list of 130 Communists or subversives in defense plants "before sundown". McCarthy stepped in and said that if Welch was so concerned about persons aiding the Communist Party, he should check on a man in his Boston law office named Fred Fisher, who had once belonged to the National Lawyers Guild, which Brownell had called "the legal mouthpiece of the Communist Party".[6] Welch had privately discussed the matter with Fisher beforehand and the two agreed Fisher should not participate in the hearings. Welch dismissed Fisher's association with the NLG as a youthful indiscretion and attacked McCarthy for naming the young man before a nationwide television audience without prior warning or previous agreement to do so:

Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us....Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true he is still with Hale and Dorr. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale and Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty I would do so. I like to think I am a gentleman, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.

When McCarthy tried to renew his attack, Welch interrupted him:

Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild ... Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

McCarthy tried to ask Welch another question about Fisher, and Welch interrupted:

"Mr. McCarthy, I will not discuss this further with you. You have sat within six feet of me and could have asked me about Fred Fisher. You have seen fit to bring it out. And if there is a God in Heaven it will do neither you nor your cause any good. I will not discuss it further. I will not ask Mr. Cohn any more witnesses. You, Mr. Chairman, may, if you will, call the next witness." At this, those watching the proceedings broke into applause.

This exchange worked because the Republicans were mainly done with McCarthy as most of the Republican party is done with Trump.

[dabigv13]

Trump has a 90% approval amongst Republicans per Gallup most recently. Slightly less than W and HW at this point in their terms, but more than Reagan and Nixon. So not sure about your last assertion there.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...ore-they-/

[OutsiderFan]

Trump has a 90% approval amongst Republicans per Gallup most recently. Slightly less than W and HW at this point in their terms, but more than Reagan and Nixon. So not sure about your last assertion there.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...ore-they-/

The only reason the 90% approval exists is because the denominator has shrink so much. The GOP has lost 8% of its party membership this year.  In contrast, Dems have gained 5%.

[BostonCard]

Trump has a 90% approval amongst Republicans per Gallup most recently. Slightly less than W and HW at this point in their terms, but more than Reagan and Nixon. So not sure about your last assertion there.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...ore-they-/

The only reason the 90% approval exists is because the denominator has shrink so much. The GOP has lost 8% of its party membership this year.  In contrast, Dems have gained 5%.

Something like 94% of Republicans who favored Trump in 2016 still intend to vote for him in 2020.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/...e-election

This snapshot illustrates how Mr Trump has not so much divided America as cemented its differences. Despite Joe Biden’s polling lead, Republicans are solidly behind the president. He is the most popular president with his own party on record: 94% of the people who voted for him in 2016 intend to do so again. Mr Biden’s lead owes more to his success in mobilising Democrats and former third-party voters against the president than shrinking his vote.

BC

[JustAnotherFan]

My God.

"It is the plague." ~ Donald J. Trump, April 13th

[oregontim]

Trump has a 90% approval amongst Republicans per Gallup most recently. Slightly less than W and HW at this point in their terms, but more than Reagan and Nixon. So not sure about your last assertion there.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...ore-they-/

The only reason the 90% approval exists is because the denominator has shrink so much. The GOP has lost 8% of its party membership this year.  In contrast, Dems have gained 5%.

Brilliant. Thanks OF. A ray of hope. And damn, I need one, as I sit underneath the eighth straight day of orange and "hazardous" (400+ AQI) air.

[Mick]

Trump has a 90% approval amongst Republicans per Gallup most recently. Slightly less than W and HW at this point in their terms, but more than Reagan and Nixon. So not sure about your last assertion there.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...ore-they-/

The only reason the 90% approval exists is because the denominator has shrink so much. The GOP has lost 8% of its party membership this year.  In contrast, Dems have gained 5%.

Brilliant. Thanks OF. A ray of hope. And damn, I need one, as I sit underneath the eighth straight day of orange and "hazardous" (400+ AQI) air.

We don't need a "ray of hope."  This is Biden/Harris's to lose.  They have a of immense proportions comfortable lead, Trump stubs his toe and makes missteps repeatedly, and Trump has offended his solid supporters; e.g., college-educated women who are more interested in Biden now.

Book it.  Trump loss in November.  Return to normalcy, including appropriate treatment for CDC and preparation for risks like pandemics.

[Goose]

Book it.  Trump loss in November.  Return to normalcy, including appropriate treatment for CDC and preparation for risks like pandemics.

I hope you are correct about Trump losing. However, as far as the CDC and preparation for pandemics, I definitely do NOT hope for a return to "normalcy". The previous administrations brought us a CDC that was by their own publications unprepared for a pandemic and State and County Health departments with no clue of how they could do adequate tracking and tracing of a pandemic. That wasn't Trump. That was our Congress, our previous (and current) Presidents, and US as a nation. If we think replacing Trump fixes that, we will simply repeat our sorry present history.