Summary of: On the Prospects for County- and State-Level Investigation and Prosecution of CDC Personnel and Others for Wrongdoing in the COVID-19 Vaccination Era
Summary of: On the Prospects for County- and State-Level Investigation and Prosecution of CDC Personnel and Others for Wrongdoing in the COVID-19 Vaccination Era
Original by Ed Berkovich on Oct 23, 2024
"A county attorney or state attorney general could lawfully file a criminal charge in the name of his or her state against a federal official in any case meeting the legal threshold..."
Note: Politicized LLM AI :
“I need an image from DALL-E representing this symbolically” — Moi
“I wasn't able to generate the requested image because it conflicts with our content policy. If you would like a symbolic or abstract representation of something else, feel free to adjust your request, and I’ll be happy to create it!” — ChatGPT 4.0
Link here
In the opinion piece, Ed Berkovich argues for the legal feasibility of investigating and prosecuting CDC personnel and other officials for potential wrongdoing during the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. He suggests that county attorneys and state attorneys general could lawfully bring charges under state laws, such as reckless endangerment, against federal officials if the legal threshold of reasonable suspicion is met. The focus is on CDC personnel like Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, the vaccine safety team lead on the CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force, who allegedly withheld information about the risks of myocarditis (heart inflammation) linked to the Pfizer vaccine, particularly in young males, during the early stages of the vaccination rollout in 2021.
Legal Basis for Prosecution
Berkovich begins by laying out the case for why state-level prosecution of federal officials is possible. He emphasizes that reckless endangerment, as defined by state laws (in this case, using Utah's legal code as an example), occurs when someone recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury, even if no injury actually occurs. The crime could be charged as a misdemeanor, but Berkovich points out that if there were numerous instances of reckless endangerment (i.e., many people exposed to vaccine risks without proper warning), multiple charges could be filed, theoretically leading to more severe consequences.
The standard for bringing charges is "reasonable suspicion," which is a lower threshold than "probable cause." Reasonable suspicion allows for an investigation to determine if further legal action is warranted. Berkovich argues that the available evidence, including internal CDC emails obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, meets this standard. These emails suggest that the CDC was aware of myocarditis risks from COVID-19 vaccines as early as February 2021 but did not publicly acknowledge these risks or share them with all relevant parties, including White House officials, until much later.
Evidence of Reckless Endangerment
The article outlines several key pieces of evidence that Berkovich believes justify an investigation:
Internal Communications: CDC personnel were involved in discussions about myocarditis risks with officials from Israel and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) as early as February and March 2021. Israeli Ministry of Health officials alerted the CDC to a significant number of myocarditis cases in young people following Pfizer vaccinations. CDC officials, including Dr. Shimabukuro, received this information but continued to publicly downplay the risks.
Emails and Meetings: Throughout March and April 2021, CDC officials had numerous communications about myocarditis risks. A Zoom meeting between Israeli health officials and the CDC took place in early March to discuss these concerns. Dr. Shimabukuro and others participated in email chains discussing myocarditis incidents but still claimed, even in late April, that they did not have evidence of a safety problem, despite accumulating reports and data.
Discrepancies in Public and Private Messaging: Berkovich points to a stark difference between internal CDC communications about vaccine risks and the messaging provided to the public. Internally, the CDC recognized myocarditis as a potential safety signal, but publicly, the agency claimed there was no significant evidence of harm. This, according to Berkovich, constitutes reckless behavior that could have endangered millions of people getting vaccinated without full knowledge of the risks.
Legal Challenges and Considerations
Berkovich acknowledges the legal challenges in prosecuting federal officials at the state level, including Supremacy Clause immunity, which generally protects federal officials from being prosecuted under state law for actions taken as part of their official duties. However, this immunity has limits. If federal officials acted outside their legal authority or failed to act responsibly within their roles, they may not be protected. Berkovich argues that the CDC’s withholding of critical safety information may fall outside the scope of their duties, especially if it resulted in public harm.
Additionally, Berkovich examines other legal hurdles such as jurisdiction, venue, and statutes of limitations. He explains how a state could claim jurisdiction over federal officials if the effects of their actions were felt within that state. He also notes that while reckless endangerment is often subject to a two-year statute of limitations (which has already passed for actions in 2021), there are legal arguments that could extend this period, such as if the defendants were out of state during that time or if their actions continued to endanger people beyond 2021 due to ongoing vaccine campaigns.
Precedent and Potential Outcomes
The article discusses legal precedents where federal officials have been prosecuted at the state level, such as the case of Wyoming v. Livingston (2006), in which a U.S. Fish and Wildlife official was prosecuted for state law crimes. This case suggests that under certain circumstances, state-level prosecutions of federal officials are possible. Berkovich asserts that if CDC officials acted recklessly by withholding vaccine safety information, they could be held accountable in a similar manner.
While the maximum punishment for reckless endangerment under Utah law, for example, is a fine and up to 364 days in jail, Berkovich argues that if multiple charges were filed—one for each person recklessly endangered—the potential consequences could be more severe. He notes that there are numerous documented cases of myocarditis and other serious side effects following COVID-19 vaccinations, which could support such an approach.
Alternative to Retributive Justice
Berkovich briefly introduces the idea of exploring alternatives to traditional criminal prosecution. He refers to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) model used in South Africa after apartheid, where offenders were encouraged to come forward, disclose their wrongdoing, and seek forgiveness in exchange for amnesty. This approach, he suggests, could be a way to address COVID-19-era misconduct while avoiding the prolonged and potentially divisive nature of widespread prosecutions.
He suggests that some officials may be willing to admit their mistakes if given the opportunity to do so in a setting that prioritizes truth-telling and reconciliation over punishment. However, for those who resist accountability, Berkovich supports the idea of pursuing investigations and prosecutions as needed.
Conclusion and Call to Action
In conclusion, Berkovich encourages readers, particularly those aligned with his views, to consider advocating for state- and county-level investigations and prosecutions. He urges county attorneys, state attorneys general, and legislators to take action where possible, using existing legal frameworks to hold officials accountable for decisions made during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. He suggests that these efforts could start on a smaller scale, independent of the larger, more politically fraught federal investigations that some have called for.
He also invites readers to consider sending his article to political candidates and raising these issues at town halls and other forums to spur further discussion and action. Finally, he hints at future posts where he plans to develop these ideas further and explore additional potential legal and ethical ramifications of the COVID-19 vaccine campaign.