Really.
Trump surrounds himself with stupidity.
·
Why did the US (NIH) in 2017 give $3.7m to the Wuhan Lab in China?
Such grants were prohibited in 2014.
Did Pres. Obama grant an exception?
And to think, this imbecile still holds a license to practice law!
11 comments:
If any of your usual trolls even show up, they're gonna have nothing on this one. They'll just use the "Well what about when so-and-so did such-and-such" thing to try to change the subject.
If they even realize what was wrong with what Giuliani said, that is.
Infidel753 Like you, I doubt very much that a Trump troll will get it.
Sorry Ms Shaw but that although you are correct that 3.7 million was given but that was from 2014-2019 so looks like there were two idiots. $700,000 was approved by trump which means 3 million was approved by the other guy.
Who is your guess to be the first female president? I don't see how trump can win even against the clueless opponent, that would be predator joe. I still hope the the dems have a contested convention and get cuomo to take the seat. He is the man of the month and he wants the job.
Hope you stay safe
To skudrunner: "predator joe?" You and your Trumper friends have no trouble with sexual predators. You have NEVER called trump a "predator," even though he has admitted to sexual assault -- grabbing women's genitals, because he's a star -- you have a nerve to use that slur against Biden. But no one expects moral consistency from Trump cultists.
Did the Obama administration grant $3.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Between 2014 and 2019, the EcoHealth Alliance was awarded a series of grants totaling approximately $3.7 million by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (a division of the National Institutes of Health) to study the “risk of future coronavirus (CoV) emergence from wildlife using in-depth field investigations across the human-wildlife interface in China.” Only a portion of this money has been used to fund research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, however, and approximately $700,000 of this grant money was awarded under the Trump administration.
Despite having a grain of truth at its core, the claim that the Obama administration gave a $3.7 million grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology is therefore misleading at best. It first gained prominence on April 11, 2020, on the heels of an article published in the Daily Mail. The British tabloid claimed that it had obtained documents showing that coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been funded by a $3.7 million grant from the U.S. government.
[skip]
While a portion of these grants funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, this lab did not receive all $3.7 million. Under award number NIAID R01AI110964, NIH also funded studies produced by institutions in the United States, Australia, and Singapore, and the work involving the Wuhan Institute of Virology was an international collaboration with the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance.
Furthermore, while these funds were originally appropriated by the NIH in 2014 during the Obama administration, the most recent payment, in 2019, was authorized by the Trump administration. The payments record in the above-displayed image from the Department of Health and Human Services show that the EcoHealth Alliance filed “Noncompeting Continuation” applications in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. In 2019, however, the organization filed a renewl application (previously called a “competing continuation”). This renewal application was awarded by the NIH under Trump’s administration.
SNOPES
It seems to be OK for predator joe to make inappropriate remarks and advances to women but no one else, except maybe clinton. I guess if you are a democrat you get a pass.
In your reference to the funding of Wuhan lab you did forget to mention that out of the 3.7 million only 700,000 was during the trump administration and all of it was administered by the obama appointed NIH chief.
We have survived the carter and the soetoro administration and we will survive the trump administration as well. This is brutal time for the world but so was the 1720 Plague, 1820 Cholera, 1920 Spanish flu and now 2020 Coronavirus-19. This will take a couple of years for normalcy to return and people will rethink urbanization as a good life choice but will will survive as a world and as a nation.
Be Safe
skud: "It seems to be OK for predator joe to make inappropriate remarks and advances to women but no one else,"
More b.s. from skud. First off, touching a woman's shoulders and hugging, while inappropriate if not invited by the female, is NOT the same as bragging about and actually grabbing females by their genitals, as the man who leads your party did. There are 20+ women who have credibly accused Trump of sexual harassment and assault, one of which was a 13 year old child who claimed Trump raped her.
I have said that the woman who claimed Biden sexually assaulted her needs to be heard and the allegations need to be investigated.
It is curious, though skud, isn't it, that NO OTHER WOMAN HAS COME FORTH WITH ANY ALLEGATION LIKE THIS WOMAN'S, sexual assault. Other women have complained that he hugged them or touched their hair.
Trump, however, has 20+ accusers, Tara Reade is the first and only woman to have accused Biden of sexual assault. So let's hear her and listen to what she has as evidence.
YOU, skud, never said anything about Trump's accusers, at least not here, but you are ever so eager to keep this accusation front and center while ignoring the leader of your party and his nauseating behavior toward women -- a behavior that he himself bragged about.
But that's what Trumpers and Goopers are: Monumental hypocrites who are quick to point out in others what they ignore in Trump.
That's really not an admirable quality, skud. Most people wouldn't engage in exposing their hypocrisy on blogs.
PS. Clinton did NOT get a pass, as you put it. He was impeached. And impeachment is forever. JUst like it is for Trump, oh, I mean Drumpf.
Also, this is the last time you get to post about what Biden is accused of. Why? BECAUSE YOU NEVER ONCE POSTED ABOUT TRUMP'S SEXUAL ASSAULT ACCUSATIONS, so I take that as your being okay with men who do that sort of thing to women. Your actions (not ever bringing this up about Trump) speak louder than your words.
Clinton did not get impeached. There has never been a president impeached. There have been three where one part of congress have voted to impeach but none have been impeached including clinton.
Only one accusation was needed for a total investigation of a supreme so one seems to be enough. As to you saying I have never posted anything about trump and his sexual exploits, you are mistaken.
Be Safe
To be impeached as a POTUS is to be charged with misconduct and/or a crime in office.
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and acquitted of that charge in the U.S. Senate.
Trump, like Clinton, was also impeached. Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of justice. Like Clinton, Trump was acquitted of the charges.
Impeachment is defined as charging a member of public office, like the president, with alleged misconduct. This happens if Congress thinks the president is no longer fit to serve.
The Constitution states that presidents can be removed from office if they have committed wrongdoings–which are usaully based on the public’s arbitrary belief that a certain action was “bad enough” to begin the impeachment process. However, impeachment doesn’t always end in the removal of the president from office.
Only three presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump, but they were acquitted.
I'm glad to be of help in your understanding of how our system of government works.
PS. I didn't get this information on SNOPES, that site run by, y'know, George Soros. I've known what impeachment means since the time of Richard Nixon, who was not impeached, but decided to resign because Republicans from his party told him his conviction for his high crimes and misdemeanors would be a slam-dunk.
That is like saying accused and guilty are the same. Vote to impeach is different than impeachment.
All were impeached but acquitted of the charges so it is semantics in all three cases.
Let me be more specific. The impeachment process was started in all three by a highly partisan House of Representatives, in Clinton's case republicans but the Senate acquitted him, like I said semantics.
skud: That is like saying accused and guilty are the same.
No. It. Isn't.
im·peach
/imˈpēCH/
verb
US
charge (the holder of a public office) with misconduct.
"the governor served only one year before being impeached and convicted for fiscal fraud"
Similar: indict, charge, accuse, bring a charge against, bring a case against, lay charges against, prefer charges against, arraign, take to court, put on trial, bring to trial, prosecute
To impeach is to bring charges against someone for high crimes and misdemeanors.
It NEVER means guilty.
The U.S. Senate decides if the charges against a president are enough to remove him or her from office.
It is NOT "semantics."
To impeach means to bring charges/indictment against (in this case) the POTUS.
There's no "semantics" involved. It's quite clear. Read the Constitution:
The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" ( Article I, section 2 ) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" ( Article I, section 3 ). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.
Post a Comment