Intelligence agencies, divided after review, say COVID-19 origins may never be known
WASHINGTON — After a 90-day sprint for answers, U.S. intelligence agencies remain divided over whether the coronavirus started from a lab-related incident or spread naturally from an animal to a human, and say the origins of the pandemic may never be known, according to an unclassified version of a report on the review.
The intelligence community is united in the belief that the emergence of the coronavirus surprised Beijing in the winter of2019, when it was first detected.
President Joe Biden ordered the three-month probe in May, leading to a hunt by U.S. intelligence agencies to solve one of the central questions of the pandemic.
A classified version of the report was submitted to the president on Tuesday. Leadership and oversight committees in Congress have also been briefed.
The unclassified report states that COVID-19 initially likely emerged in infected humans in small-scale exposure incidents starting no later than November 2019, and that the first major clusters occurred in Wuhan, China, a month later.
Four agencies within the intelligence community, and the National Intelligence Council, came to a low-confidence assessment that the virus most likely spread naturally from animals. One agency assessed with moderate confidence that it was more likely the result of a laboratory incident.
All parts of the intelligence community came to broad agreement that the coronavirus disease known as SARS-CoV-2 was not developed as a biological weapon, and that Chinese officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before it emerged in the population,the report says.
They also agree, with a low level of confidence, that it is unlikely the virus was genetically engineered.
—McClatchy Washington Bureau
Federal judge rejects lawsuit that sought to block Gavin Newsom’s recall election
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal judge on Friday rejected a lawsuit that claimed the recall of California Gov. Gavin Newsom is unconstitutional, allowing the election to proceed.
The lawsuit centered on the recall’s two-question ballot. The ballots asks voters whether Newsom should be recalled, and if so, who should replace him.
The plaintiffs argued those questions violate the constitutional principle of “one person, one vote,” because they say Newsom’s critics get two choices while his supporters have only one.
Their case mirrored an argument, advanced in The New York Times, by University of California, Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Berkeley professor Aaron Edlin, who pointed out that Newsom’s successor could be elected with fewer votes than the number of people who vote to keep him in office.
The plaintiffs, Rex Julian Beaber and A.W. Clark, argued that the recall election should either be blocked, or delayed until the ballot could be amended so that Californians can vote for Newsom for the second question.
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California shot down their argument.
“First, as a matter of logic and common sense, it simply is not true that plaintiff only gets to vote once while others get to vote twice. Plaintiff and all California voters have the opportunity to vote two distinct issues. The first is whether the governor should be recalled. Plaintiff and all other voters have the opportunity but not the obligation to vote for a replacement candidate,” the judge wrote.
—The Sacramento Bee
As the investigation drags on, Jan. 6 defendants win more freedom
ATLANTA — Back in January, a federal judge deemed South Georgia resident William McCall Calhoun Jr. such a persistent danger to his community and the nation that he needed to be held in jail until a jury could decide his fate.
He wasn't alone. Prosecutors recommended that Calhoun and dozens of others accused in taking part in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol by pro-Trump partisans be denied bail, and often judges agreed.
For instance, Magistrate Judge Charles Weigel said Calhoun had been "corrupted by or seduced by a dangerous and violent ideology that considers the United States to be in a state of civil war" and denied his request for bond.
Weigel had reason to fear Calhoun could not be allowed to return home. Following the riot, Calhoun had taken to Parler, asocial media site popular among conservatives, and bragged about breaking into the Capitol.
"The word is we're all coming back armed for war," he wrote, according to court records.
And it wasn't just words. When Calhoun was arrested, federal agents discovered an arsenal of weapons and ammo in his bedroom,including multiple assault rifles, shotguns and handguns, cases of ammunitions, knives and brass knuckles.
But just a few weeks later Calhoun appealed the decision and won. Instead of jail, he was released on his own recognizance,allowed to stay with his sister in Macon and resume his legal practice. And this week, Calhoun won even more freedom to stay by himself in his office apartment in Americus during trial weeks when driving the hour-plus to and from Macon was inconvenient.
Calhoun is not a special case. Scores of defendants in the massive Jan. 6 investigation initially jailed have since been freed on bond. And among those from Georgia, several recently have petitioned to have their bond conditions loosened.
Buddy Parker, a former federal prosecutor and current defense attorney in Atlanta, said bond decisions involving the nearly 600 people so far charged with crimes related to the events of Jan. 6 have been influenced by a number of factors.
—The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
