“On behalf of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), I hereby suspend and propose the debarment of Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Capital Construction ( WIV from participating in United States Federal Government procurement and nonprocurement programs.”
17 July, 2023
DB2
What happened to the signature?
Andy
It appears to have been redacted. It would be Carolyn Taylor.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/carolyn-taylor-165b99144#:~:text=Carolyn%20Taylor%20Deputy%20Assistant%20Secretary%20for%20Acquisition%2C%20(HHSgov)%2C,U.S.%20Department%20of%20Health%20and%20Human%20Services%20(HHS)
DB2
It would be if she signed it. Why would anyone redact it? Doesn’t make sense since we know who is in office. It isn’t a secret.
Andy
Bureaucrats avoid owning things. The policy decisions can be personalized by some in the public but are not at all meant to be personalized. It is US government policy not Carolyn Taylor’s policy.
The public has a hard enough time understanding that the US government does cost/benefit analysis on every dollar to help the over all US economy. Instead we have people hell bound that it is all out to get them.
He is not a bureaucrat in the strict sense of the word. He is a world leader.
See his new ad? It is MTG only and then he over dubs that “I endorse this ad”. She is comparing him to FDR and LBJ. She made his case for him. It is her voice and word for her nothing else.
Seriously you are going political. Why? Is there a point that is econ?
I am not going political. Leap you are the one who said Bureaucrats avoid owning things and I am trying to show you that is incorrect. The document the OP presented had no signature on it yet you are willing to accept it as proof. I am not. I want to see the signature on the document, even though that can be forged also. Otherwise now all we have is a document on the Internet that anyone could have produced. With AI here, it is going to be hard to ascertain what is real and what isn’t.
Andy
The people you are showing are not bureaucrats they are politicians. Hence owning stuff they think looks good in the campaign. The bureaucrat does not get elected and does not campaign. Of course, this will change when Trump is re-elected, they already have the plans and the lists of people that are loyal.
JimA
Ok Jim so you want to separate them as politicians and bureaucrats. That is fine, I apologize. Here you go.
I could go on and on but you get my point. When you have a document that states on the document who you are and the signature is blacked out, well that makes me very skeptical.
Andy
Skeptical of what? That it actually happened? What news link would you prefer: The Washington Post, Bloomberg, Reuters, ABC, CNN, The New York Times or something else?
DB2
Of the Document. Whether it is true or not is beyond my pay grade. But I do not believe the document you are showing because there is no reason to redact the signature, none at all.
Andy
Andy, you didn’t say which news link you preferred. Here are three; there are others if you are interested.
DB2
I don’t doubt the authenticity of the document (it is posted on an official site no less), but I do wonder why both the signature and the one law firm are blacked out.
I can’t think of a single reason why that shouldn’t be public information - especially since once could easily obtain that information with a little bit of searching.
I’d prefer things to be in your face signed.
But that is not the job of a bureaucrat in the press. Honestly I donno just feels bogged down worrying about it.
I like that DB, but I couldn’t read the Washington Post because it was behind a pay wall. I am surprised that they didn’t use the document that started this discussion, if it was authenticate. But 
, thank you.
Andy
Ok I didn’t catch that. Thanks Hawkwin. DB2 thanks for the document, nice find. 
Andy
For WaPo and NYT try this site:
DB2
The NYT is $4 per month if you go to cancel it.
Pretty sure WaPo matched that.
