I’m not sure what to think of this, especially because it appears that only the RWNJ press is really reporting on it. At 78, he could possibly have had some early-stage dementia going on.
Of course, some of the RWNJers are having a field day with this: “Throw Fauci under the bus that he constructed, drove, and forced us to ride on!” but we have to find out more.
“Covid Reports”?
He’s in trouble for taking money and faking FOI reports to support a grant for “research” on the “Lab Release” conspiracy theory.
FOI reports, not COVID reports, and yes, he had to fake FOI reports to cover up why grant money was going to “Lab Release” con artists instead of scientifically based “Bat Source” research.
I couldn’t quite follow the original document.
The person under indictment Morens sounded unlikable, having sold himself out for some bottles of wine. It’s a good thing I’d be satisfied with an honestly-earned 2 Buck Chuck.
FOI? Is that Freedom of Information? Usually, I see that as FOIA, …Act.
Can you provide a mainstream cite for your last paragraph?
So the full list of his hideous crimes is…
I look forward to every single Trump appointee going to prison. Without a bit of exaggeration I don’t think there is a single Trump appointee who has not committed that level of criminality.at the very least. If that’s the bar then let’s lock them all the hell up.
Oh, well, pardon me!
See the guardian article (under normal circumstances I would consider the DOJ statement the primary source over other discussion in the press, but under the Trump administration thats not the case 
)
Morens and two co-conspirators – anticipating that their communications would be requested under the federal Freedom of Information Act – "agreed in writing to intentionally hide from public view their communication
That’s a very different thing than deliberately conspiring to keep their communication out of legal scrutiny, which is a commonly prosecuted crime. This is an extremely low bar and doing this is ubiquitous in the Trump administration (e.g. the whole DOGE effort was based on this)
I was looking for a cite for this:
Yeah I don’t see any reference to any kind of fake reports here, that’s not a thing. The only thing he’s accused of is…
All of which is completely ubiquitous in the Trump administration.
There was nothing illegal or nefarious about the original contract no matter how much Trump and his DOJ would like there to be.
I didn’t see any either in the places I looked, so I asked @Melbourne for a cite. Any luck, @Melbourne?
I see what you did there.
I guess a cite won’t be forthcoming. I’m ensaddened.
I use Win7, and sometimes can’t post for long periods.
I missed the “gratuities” – I assumed that was cash, not goods. I would say that for a public servant here, that would be very bad form, and you would have to be exceptionally stupid not to realize that it was a career-limiting move. A management-level public servant would only expect prosecution if it became a public-press issue.
I don’t think that there is any question but that incorrect / untrue FOI reports were the result of his actions. Is this a semantic issue, or do you disagree?
I disagree that he faked the FOI reports, or that money was going to lab release “con artists.” I don’t see that anywhere.
You can also fake FOI reports either by doing the typing, or by concealing the evidence on which they are based. The charge was that he deliberately hid information, for the purpose of hiding it from FOI, so that the FOI reports were intentionally false.
And that the information he was hiding, was discussion about getting grant money directed in one particular direction, rather than another.
From the original post reference: " In anticipation that their communications would be requested through a FOIA Request, Morens, Co-Conspirator 1, and Co-Conspirator 2 agreed in writing to intentionally hide from public view their communications"
I understand the suggestion that “causing a report to be false” is not the same as “falsifying a report”, but I think you should be clear that you are making a semantic point.
My original post was about the use of “COVID reports” for “FOIA reports”. If you wish to address the substance of my post, that’s what you should focus on. If you want to argue about the meaning of the word “falsifying” in the thread title, you should direct your attention to the OP.
Apparently, he used his personal address to avoid FOIA scrutiny – is that right? I’m not saying that’s the right thing to do, but that’s not faking anything. And, “lab release con artists”?