38 Burst results for "Executive Branch"

Fresh update on "executive branch" discussed on Chris Burns

Chris Burns

02:18 min | 3 hrs ago

Fresh update on "executive branch" discussed on Chris Burns

"Sunday afternoon we find ourselves in here friends because the president decided Congress was taking too long. And he released his own stimulus package via executive order. Will neither side seems happy about it. When you look at Congress, most Republicans and Democrats not coming out strongly. Certainly Democrats, not in favor Republicans, many Republicans Saying they don't like it. Some just kind of staying quiet. But don't be fooled. I'm going to tell you why. I think Republicans and Democrats in Congress are not that unhappy about this. We'll dig into that a minute, but I have so many questions about what you think. About the stimulus package the president has released because to be executive order until something stops that much like the executive orders the president has given earlier where it had to be a court. That literally said hat Now that's not OK. We're going to stop it. This thing will probably go into effect, at least for a period of time. So I'd like to know your thoughts on two things one. What do you think of the package and we talked for a minute about what are the different pieces of this and to what do you think about the long term impact of continuing presidential Executive Branch authority, increasing And I know that the one is very practical. What do you think of an actual practical stimulus plan, and the other one is much more philosophical. What is the impact on us Long term? I think both really matter here. Because not only will we experience the effects of this now and for a lot of us that are struggling that are unemployed that are out of work. That truly when that $600 a week ended for 30 million Americans an extra $600 a week of stimulus, the federal government was adding toe unemployment checks. When that ended, a lot of people suddenly went. I don't know how to pay my bills. And whether we agree with it or didn't agree with that. That's a huge issue. 30 million Americans. That stimulus was making up as we talked about last week that stimulus was making up An actual sizable percentage of the entire wages being paid in the US And so President Trump has come out with his new plan. What did you think of the plan? And are you concerned at all about the continuing movement of executive power forward, both Republican and Democratic administrations the number to reach the show 40487207 50. That's 1 800 WSB talk would love your thoughts on this. I mean, you could break down over the actual package is Because what I'm going to say about this is I actually don't hate the way that this has put together. I think if Congress had come forward and said, this is the plan for the next few months I can pick out I can tell you we're at aunt that's going to be effective. But overall, I would go. You know, that's not a bad compromise. So my issue is not 100% with the plan itself will talk through that Maya's She really is more the philosophical side of this just to give you my hand up front of going. This is not where the executive branch is built to be. And and we're letting that happen and not only re letting it happen. I think Congress is not unhappy that that's happening because it's it's a pattern. We've settled into over a long period of time again. Your thoughts on that for a 487207 50. Let me give you a quick overview of what the president came out and said, so. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been arguing for the last number. Of days and really last two weeks or so. About what do we do when the current stimulus stops specifically the most pain being felt by folks that were receiving that extra $600 a week? Of unemployment assistance from the federal government beyond what they were getting from state governments, by the way, the average a little over $300. A week from states. So it was about double what most people would have been getting from the maximum state amount. So significant for a lot of folks obviously OK, so the president came out and said this look We're going to do for $100 a week of extra unemployment benefits. But the federal government's Onley covering 75% of that, so 100 of that has to be paid by the states. Now can the going to hear me say this a lot? Can the president require states to do that? Probably not. He came out and said they're going to do that. And we're kind of seeing different state governors scrambling going while we don't know if we can do that. Do we have to do that? Can we afford to do that? That'll all be parsed out here in the coming days, Okay. But in theory if it worked the way the president saying it $300 would come from the federal government in additional $100 from state governments so that people getting $600 now would get $400 going forward. I think that level of a reduction is actually The right step. Personally, I think when you sat and talked about will look, a lot of folks are making Mawr. In fact, 2/3 of the people receiving the $600 per week of extra assistance were making Mohr because that then they were prior. To being unemployed. That's going to be problematic long term, but cutting it immediately down to $200 a week is a steep drop. So saying we're going to move to 400 for a period of time you go. Okay? I think that's healthy compromise again. If Congress had come with that compromise, I would have said OK, not about compromise. Whether the states are going to get behind that. That's a huge question marks. If you're somebody sitting right now, who was receiving that stimulus at $600? It sounds like assuming the executive order goes through. You're going to get at least $300 extra from the federal government. Whether the state comes through with the other 100. I'm sure we'll see a lot of discussions this week on that, okay. That was the first point second point That we would see a change in the ability to defer payroll taxes. Okay, This is going to sound a little bit out there, but think about it every time that you get your paycheck a portion of your paycheck. Goes directly to Social Security and Medicare. Okay, A Medicare surtax. All right. This is on ly involving the Social Security peace so 6.2% about 6% of the money that you get in your paycheck up to a certain dollar amounts of 135 $137,000. 6% of that roughly goes towards Social Security. You have to pay 6%. Your employer, if you're employed has to also pay 6%. Now the Kia what? You don't realize this under the cares act. Employers already have had the option of deferring Their portion. So your employer might already be deferring the 6% they're supposed to pay based on your income, but they're gonna have to pay it back. Most likely it's a plan to deferral. Which means you gotta pay it back. And now President Trump saying, we're gonna offer the same thing Where you as an individual if you make Western about $100,000 a year. Could get additional 6% into your actual paycheck. Because it's not going to go to Social Security. It's deferred. But the question is okay. But when is it going to be do what? We don't know what the president said in his briefing was our hope would be Two. Get elected again in November. That's what he said that if I'm elected, then I would try and forgive all those debts so they never have to be paid back. And beyond that, I would also try to change the law so that we never have to. We have to pay those taxes. Well, that's a huge question. Mark. We don't have to dig deep into that today..

President Trump Congress Executive Federal Government Executive Branch Authority WSB United States Onley Mohr Mark Mawr Medicare
The Executive Order To Ban TikTok and WeChat

Techmeme Ride Home

05:46 min | 2 d ago

The Executive Order To Ban TikTok and WeChat

"He went ahead and did it president trump has signed an executive order to block all transactions with tiktok maker Bite Dance, as well as all transactions with Chinese tech giant tencent beginning on September twentieth. Now, it's worth noting that September twentieth would be five days after Microsoft's deadline to acquire the non-chinese parts of Tiktok or not. Quoting the verge, the spread of APPs controlled by the Chinese government continues to threaten the national security foreign policy and economy of the United States. The order reads the United States must take aggressive action against the owners of Tiktok to protect our national security and quote a parallel order. Banda transactions with we chat a texting APP in China that maintains a small user base in the US in both orders, the president names, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as authority for the move, as well as the national emergencies act effectively naming talks continued operation within the United States as a national. Emergency such. A move is highly unusual and will likely be subject to a legal challenge. The executive branch has the power to levy sanctions against individuals and corporations by them on the entity list as the US did against Y. and Z., t. e. last year but such sanctions are typically put in place by the Commerce Department rather than the White House and Senate to specific rulemaking procedures that seemed to have been short-circuited by surprise executive order. The president also has the power to force the divestiture of US companies from foreign ownership through the committee on foreign investment in the United States or. But doing so also requires a specific process that seems to have been discarded in favor of a broader executive order. It's unclear how the order will affect talks ability to operate in the short term unlike Weiwei Z. T. The company does not require licenses to operate its network and nothing in the order seems to require APP stores to seize hosting the APP. However, it explicitly covers subsidiaries of by dance specifically, the US based TIKTOK division, and we'll apply to any and all financial transfers to and from those subsidiaries as a result. TIKTOK. Likely to seek a stay of the order in court or be forced to abruptly discontinue services as it takes effect and quote. So everyone basically scrambling to figure out what all this means. There does appear to be a loophole in the order because the order has a clause that reads quote to the extent permitted under applicable law and quote. But also, as Alex, tweeted quote, if I'm reading this correctly, it obliges apple to remove chat from the Chinese APP store, which would effectively kill the company's phone business in China. China represents a little under fifteen percent of Apple's global revenue. But at the same time, the order says we chat quote has over one billion users worldwide, which means it's counting Chinese users as we chat users given the references to chat having more than a billion users. It's clearly intended to apply to the APP globally I. think that would be substantially more damaging for apple in China then losing Google services was for way in the West. I. Think and yet this is the US government doing it to both and quote indeed, Bloomberg has a piece of art that we chat is banned from the Chinese APP store. The ramifications would be huge because we chat is a communication and transaction cornerstone in modern Chinese life. Being without chat would be a big enough deal for Chinese users as to essentially possibly kill the iphone business in China, and at the very least would probably be a big deal as to go to China into some major form of retaliation. Now tencent owns wechat tencent has a market cap of six, hundred, eighty, seven, billion dollars. Its stock was down more than ten percent afterward of this executive order came down. As Dan primack tweeted quote the tencent we chat order maybe more consequential for us tech companies because it seems to ban any transactions with tencent tencent invest in lots of us, companies including fortnight maker EPIC Games. Let's play this out. tencent has an investment in read it tencent can't do transactions after forty five days. So must tencent divest within forty five days if not, how would it ever sell trying to get clarity on this to end quote? Yeah I WANNA put aside the questions as to whether or not Chinese apps represent a security threat for the moment. I for one have uninstalled Tiktok on my phone because I don't trust it. But more immediately, I think most in silicon valley are watching to see if there is. Any immediate cascading of retaliatory actions by the Chinese that could put a cramp in wet silicon valley can do globally. Sources are telling buzzfeed news that an all hands meeting Mark Zuckerberg told facebook employees that banning tiktok would set a bad precedent code I. Just think it's a really bad long-term precedent and that it needs to be handled with the utmost care and gravity whatever the solution Zuckerberg said. I'm really worried. It could very well have long term consequences in other countries around the world and quote. While noted that tick Tock Band in India in June was being hit. Now he alluded to the idea that facebook products could become a target for another country. Later, he did however sympathize with the trump administration's national security concerns. Quote. I. Certainly think that there are valid national security questions about having an APP that has a lot of people's data that follows the rules of another country government that increasingly is kind of seen as a competitor Soccer Berg said quote.

United States Tencent Tiktok China Executive President Trump Chinese Government Apple Microsoft Facebook Donald Trump Bite Dance India Weiwei Soccer Berg International Emergency Econom
Fresh "Executive Branch" from Ken Broo

Ken Broo

00:35 min | 6 hrs ago

Fresh "Executive Branch" from Ken Broo

"Day after the failed talks between the Trump administration and Democrats and Republicans over the new stimulus bill one executive order D first payroll taxes till the end of December when they need to be paid back. The president's that if elected. I will forgive all this that depletes money out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. If you're a social Security recipient to Medicare recipient, you better watch out if President Trump is reelected now The problem is that Congress controls federal spending, not the president and the executive branch branch. So it's unclear if this is legal. The surprise payroll tax cut from August 1st 2 December 1st I'll have to be paid back by the end of the year. Three people shot in Clifton Heights overnight two males and a female on West McMillan near more Line Avenue. That's nearest near. You see at the Waffle House. We just got word this morning from Cincinnati Police that the man who died is 27 year old DaMarcus Peyton. The other two are being treated at U. C Medical Center. Green Township Police are looking for a bank robber. Somebody went into the Kroger store on Harrison Avenue and Rob the 5th 3rd bank mark yesterday. The suspect is a black male wearing glasses. A light colored medical facemask black hat in a tan coat. If you know who it was contact police News.

President Trump Medicare Trump Administration Executive Green Township Police Cincinnati Police Peyton Clifton Heights Waffle House West Mcmillan U. C Medical Center Congress
Trump Says He'll 'Probably' Deliver Convention Speech From White House

Dave Ramsey

02:59 min | 4 d ago

Trump Says He'll 'Probably' Deliver Convention Speech From White House

"Were in the middle of a pandemic, right? So this campaign for president is a different sort of an animal. And you're not going to see big campaign rallies. You're not going to see big campaign events. You're not going to see big national conventions. The Democrats have scaled down what they're going to do in Milwaukee. Maybe just have a couple 100 people at their convention site in Milwaukee, all Social distancing Vice President Biden announced today that he will not even go Till Milwaukee to deliver his acceptance speech. Cognizant of the pandemic, the virus. And obviously this is a blow Donald Trump. Cause all Trump cares about is getting up in front of people. He likes to watch TV. He likes to be on TV. He likes to be in front of people at one of those big old rallies. So you take away the rally from Trump You take away the big convention. From Trump. And you leave him. With an ideal like this. That is so wrong. Trump can't deliver a big convention speech. So he's considering delivering his acceptance speech at the White House. On the south one No, I said earlier on a bunch of people have said our number by the way. 844305 78 100 very well may be illegal. It may be a violation number one of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal officials from engaging in political activities. The Hatch Act typically exempt the president and the vice president. But not any other official any other White House staffer any other official Ah federal official in Donald Trump's administration. So you're delivering a speech on the South Lawn of the White House, and you got a couple 100 of your White House staffers and executive branch officials there on the lawn, the White House as you deliver a campaign speech. That will clearly I'll be a violation of the Hatch Act for each and every one of them. The second law that maybe broken is you cannot use official government property for political for campaign purposes. I know there's no better violation of that. Then using the White House to deliver A campaign nomination acceptance speech.

Donald Trump White House Vice President Biden President Trump Milwaukee Vice President South Lawn Official Executive
Fresh update on "executive branch" discussed on Red Eye Radio

Red Eye Radio

00:46 min | 11 hrs ago

Fresh update on "executive branch" discussed on Red Eye Radio

"This is a teachable moment. Democrats just introduced a new bill. It tells you everything you need to know about him. The Democrats Racial and Economic Equity Act would require the Federal Reserve to enforce quotas throughout the entire US economy. Now under this act The feds would have to devise policies to minimize and eliminate racial disparities in employment, wages and wealth. The Fed will also have to prevent disparities and access to affordable credit. Now the Senate sponsors of this race based monstrosity are Elizabeth Warren, Focus OFHIS and Kirsten Gillibrand in the House. The bill is sponsored by Maxine Waters. Now, instead of dealing with the nation's money supply, keeping watch on inflation, interest rates and all that the Federal Reserve would be transformed into an all powerful Social Justice enforcement agency. Using racial fairness is a cover. Democrats want to give the feds a new mission to force banks and financial markets to adopt the radical left socialist agenda. They want centralized control over the economy without checks and balances from Congress or the executive branch. Right now, the bill won't get past the Republicans. On it or President Trump. But if the Democrats regain power, the enactment of this thing could be a virtual certainty. This is all out and out Marxism. It's anti free market, It would mean the end of American prosperity. That's why Democrats love it. That's why they wanted We're all spending more time at and around home these days. And if you own land, my good friends of mine, Hendrik and help you make the most of your time at home. I just think about all the projects you could do with a tough, reliable my hinder tractor like mowing and disc ing digging, entrenching lifting and hauling..

Democrats Federal Reserve President Trump Maxine Waters Elizabeth Warren Kirsten Gillibrand United States Senate Congress Executive Hendrik
Possible VP Pick Susan Rice Says She Can Handle Pandemic

Morning Edition

06:41 min | 5 d ago

Possible VP Pick Susan Rice Says She Can Handle Pandemic

"Rice is one of a handful of women on Joe Biden's short list for a running mate. She told us she is the right fit for the job. Yes, I think I could bring my experience of almost now. 20 years in the senior levels of the executive branch to bear to help tackle the most pressing problems we face. And while this would be the first time she would campaign for herself Ambassador Reiss told our co host Steve Inskeep that she's ready for him. Regardless of your experience in government, a big part of the vice presidency or seeking the vice presidency is campaigning, of course, which is not something that you've had a lot of experience doing. Do you have any eagerness to to campaign? Well, Steve. Yes, I've not run for office on my own behalf, but I've run for office on other people's behalf, where I did actually quite a bit of retail politics and speaking to groups of people. But I think unfortunately, in the current context with the pandemic, this will be quite an unusual campaign. If you were in office, you would face the fundamental problem of trust in government or lack of trust in government that is playing out. Now, Many people are refusing to wear facemasks. It seems evident from surveys that many people would think the same way about a vaccine once it's available. What would you do about that? Well, I think that's a huge challenge. And we have had vaccines many in many stages in our history. Still, today, Children need certain vaccines to be able to go to school. And I think that we're gonna have to take a similar approach that you know for kids to be able to go back to school and in Whatever jurisdiction they ought to be vaccinated and the localities ought to consider also requiring the people in the household with the Children to be vaccinated for the very reason that's obvious that this is You know, something that affects the entirety of the community. I want to ask about a couple of foreign policy problems that any administration would face on January 20th 2021 1 of them is deteriorating U. S relations with China. Now I know you've been critical of the way that President Trump is approached China. But at the same time, there are foreign policy experts across the spectrum, who said China's a problem? We don't know how to confront China. Maybe it's time for a confrontation with China. Would you want to roll back U. S relations with China to the way they were in 2016? Steve. No. I don't think you can roll back the clock on any critical issue to 2016. The world has changed and we have to deal with the world as it is. But having said that my criticism is Based predominantly on the fact that we have approached the challenge the China poses economically and strategically in isolation rather than in partnership with our allies in Asia and Europe. You know, instead of, for example, approaching our concerns about trade and economic policy, collectively with our European and Asian partners, who share many of those same concerns, and who Joining with us could add to our collective pressure on China to change its policies and approaches. We started separate trade battles with our closest allies. If you've got more partners behind you, is there some value in a confrontation with China? Well, if by confrontation you mean is it smart for us to start a hot war? I think absolutely not. No. But what about in other ways, diplomatically or otherwise? Well, diplomatically. Sure. First. What we don't need to seek confrontation for its own sake. We need to be strong and smart in how we compete with China. And push back on China's policies on the economic and the security front that threaten our interests. We also should be speaking up vocally and and forcefully about China's egregious human rights abuses from How it treats the Uighurs to the people of Hong Kong. It's common to say that a lot of the divisions of the last few years are merely highlighting what was already there. You could say that President Trump talks the way that a lot of Americans talk and believes what a lot of Americans believe, which is why millions of people voted for him. For example, it is often said that the pandemic Has struck the most vulnerable communities because they were vulnerable over a long period of time that we're just having American society exposed in a different way. Do you believe that? Well, I believe that What the pandemic has done is show how much disparity there is among Americans from a socioeconomic point of view and to a large extent of racial and ethnic point of view, And you know if it wasn't obvious to people before it, it ought to be now. But I don't think that that is the same thing is the first part of your question, which is To suggest that you know, all Donald Trump has done is shined a spotlight on some of the underbelly of our society. I don't think that's right. I think Americans at the end of the day Are not people who like to hate and to fear one another. Do you feel that you understand the roughly 40% of Americans who approve of the job the president is doing. I do think I have a good understanding. Maybe not a perfect understanding in part, Steve, because, as I write in my book, I have a 23 year old son whom I love dearly, whose politics are very, very different from my own, and from the rest of our family. Talk more about that. What are his politics? Ah, you know, I have a very conservative son in a very progressive daughter. They're both wonderful, intelligent. Passionate, committed kids. My son and I will have some robust disagreements are over some matters of policy. Not all. And yet at the end of the day. I love him dearly, and he loves me. As there have been an issue where he is almost persuaded you that maybe you're wrong. Yeah, I'm sure. I'm sure there is And you know the thing is, and I read about this in in the book. In the last chapter. I write about the areas where we agree. And the areas where we disagree, So we agree, for example. On the importance of the United States, playing a responsible principle leadership role in the world. We agree on the importance of having strong alliances. You know, we disagree. On things like, Ah, choice. I'm pro choice. He's pro life. That's the kind of difference that we oughta be able to respect. Ambassador Susan Rice. It's a pleasure to talk with. Thank you, Steve

China Steve Inskeep President Trump Susan Rice Ambassador Reiss Joe Biden Donald Trump Executive Hong Kong United States Asia Europe
Supreme Court rules Trump administration improperly ended program for "Dreamers"

Deep Background with Noah Feldman

04:52 min | Last month

Supreme Court rules Trump administration improperly ended program for "Dreamers"

"That's the sound of people celebrating in front of the Supreme Court last Thursday after the supreme. Court ruled that the trump administration had acted unlawfully when it tried to rescind DACA, the deferred action for childhood arrivals program designed to protect people known as dreamers. From a moral standpoint, this is a tremendously gratifying decision. Dreamers about the most sympathetic people you could imagine, and the fact that the trump administration sought their deportation was again from a moral standpoint horrendous. That, said the supreme. Court's decision was itself surprising on the law. The decision was written by chief. Justice John Roberts who is ordinarily a staunch conservative. And as the fact that it was a five to four decision shows, there were grounds that a conservative justice like Roberts could have used. Had He wanted to decide that? What Barack Obama put in place namely the DACA program Donald Trump could remove indeed. Roberts typically has a rather expensive conception of executive power, and although we can know with one hundred percents certainty I would say ninety nine percent probability that several years ago Roberts was one of the justices who voted to strike down an Obama program that was similar to Dhaka aimed at parents. So what was going on here? Why did chief justice? John Roberts choose to leave his conservative. And join the Liberals to keep Daca in place. Sometimes when Roberts issues, apparently liberal decision, it's clear that what he's doing is trying to preserve the appearance of legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Voiding scenario where the public would think of the justices as basically partisan. Roberts understands that the public knows that the Supreme Court justices have different ideologies. What he doesn't want is for the public to think that the justices vote based on the party of the person who appointed that. That may explain Roberts's vote not to entirely strike down obamacare. The affordable care act some years ago. In the case. However Roberts's motivation seems to have been somewhat different. What seems to be motivating, Roberts is a kind of disrespect for the Donald Trump administration's unwillingness to cross. It's t's dots is and follow the rule of law when it comes to issuing important governmental decisions. We saw this a year ago when Roberts also provided the decisive fifth vote to reverse the trump administration's plan to put a citizenship question on the twenty twenty census. Census in that case, as in the DACA case Roberts relied on a law called the administrative precede. ACT, which is the law that gives a federal courts, the authority to oversee and review decisions of administrative bodies in order to determine whether they complied with the procedures that the law demands in particular. The Administrative Procedure Act requires that the government give clear honest and. Justify and reasons for why it's doing what it's doing. And both the census case and the DACA case. Roberts ruled that the government had failed to provide those justifications in essence. Roberts was saying taking the action in question was within the General Authority of the executive branch, but the executive branch didn't do a good enough job of explaining why it did what it did. This kind of judicial supervision of governmental action is crucial to preserving the rule of law, and it's pretty clear that John Roberts no longer trusts the trump administration to do that to be sure at the beginning of the trump administration roberts was willing to give trump the benefit of the doubt. He after all wrote the opinion in the trump against Hawaii case, the one involving the Muslim travel ban in which he upheld the presence authority to issue the version of the travel ban that was in play the time. What seems to have happened subsequently is that has Roberts has gotten a closer and closer look at trump's disrespect for the courts and his disrespect for the rule of law. He's decided to take on the role of defending judiciary defending the rule of law, and if making trump comply. And it may not be a relevant. That Roberts, also had to spend a good chunk of his January sitting in the Senate, listening to the impeachment managers condemnation of Donald, trump, precisely for his disrespect for the rule of law, so if you're wondering whether John Roberts has suddenly become a liberal. Take it from me. He has not I expect more conservative decisions from him possibly even this week or next but John. Roberts has taken up the responsibility of the judiciary to keep an eye on this president. And for that I think everybody liberal or Conservative should be profoundly grateful.

John Roberts Donald Trump Daca Supreme Court Barack Obama Executive Senate Dhaka General Authority President Trump Hawaii
U.S. Justice Department proposes rolling back protections for big tech

WTOP 24 Hour News

03:05 min | Last month

U.S. Justice Department proposes rolling back protections for big tech

"Well president trump's battle against internet companies may be partly waged by the justice department the Wall Street journal reports DOJ wants to cut back legal protections or rounding controversial content though it also helps to spur companies to be fair and consistent when it comes to the content they do take down let's dive into it with Wall Street journal legal fails reporter Brent Kendall thanks for being with us friends thanks for having me so what is D. O. J. hope to do here our two main things really first they want the online platforms leading tech companies you take a more aggressive role in policing illicit and harmful conduct that's taking place on their website so either fraudulent online scams elder fraud drug trafficking ads for counterfeit drugs things of that nature they want the online companies to do a better job of keeping that stuff out and what they're proposing is that if they don't and you know somebody a consumer see the link for one of these things and buy the product or something and it's harmed that that that consumer would then be able to sue states Facebook whichever platform they saw the ad on in assembly to obtain monetary damages for the harm they suffered so that's one piece of it but what about the the idea of curving controversial comment but allowing other content to stay on board I mean it's it's asking it's a high bar isn't it for internet companies to be making decisions that DOJ's happy with well it is I mean that is the other big component here and so you know while in the criminal harmful context they want the online platforms to do more here when it comes to content moderation in a way they want the company to do last the what the what the department basically argues that that now the big platforms to sort of take down content whenever they want for whatever reason they want and that it's not always consistent well explained and so what they want to do now is say look if you want and unity and protection from lawsuits you need to have clear and fair policy that explained we know what your goals are and then you have to follow so you know if you if you're old art fair you take down certain post and don't treat other people the same way then you know the people who are disadvantaged in theory would be able to sue for having having their their poster content removed so justice wants to do this what has to happen for to actually take effect but the ball really be in Congress's court and just like president trump issued an executive order last month in the executive branch can't just strip communities from these companies on its own this legislation dating back to nineteen ninety six in the earlier days of the internet the protected internet companies so they wouldn't face crippling lawsuits at a time when you know the internet was just building and ended becoming sort of the powerhouse it is today so Congress will have to it would be up to Congress to pass any legislation that alters a rolls back the protections that were granted twenty four years ago Hey Brent thanks so much for being with us

Donald Trump President Trump
Virginia governor making Juneteenth an official holiday

WTOP 24 Hour News

01:00 min | Last month

Virginia governor making Juneteenth an official holiday

"Gather the symbolic but significant announcements this week from Virginia's governor June thirteenth or June nineteenth it's an actual celebration of the end of slavery in America and now to the idea in Virginia's governor Ralph Northam is announcing a bill making it an official state holiday in Virginia I believe Virginia will become only the second state to observe Juneteenth as a paid holiday for state employees I hope our local governments will observe this holiday for their workers as well the governor says the commemoration will start this Friday with a paid day off for executive branch state employees musician Pharrell Williams a native of Virginia beach was there for the announcement this is a very special moment very special this is a big display of progress regarding the corona virus governor Northam said we will not be moving into phase three this week he says Virginia statistics still look good but he wants to watch the numbers in the wake of coronavirus K. surges in other

Virginia America Ralph Northam Pharrell Williams Virginia Beach Official Executive
Trump preparing order targeting social media protections

AP News Radio

00:42 sec | 2 months ago

Trump preparing order targeting social media protections

"President trump is preparing to sign an executive order aimed at curbing liability protections for social media companies the move comes after Twitter added a warning phrase to a pair of trump tweets decrying vote by mail efforts under the tweets there's now a link reading get the facts about mail in ballots that prompted the president to threaten social media companies with new regulation or even shuttering tweeting this will be a big day for social media and fairness administration officials say the order he's expected to sign with direct executive branch agencies to study whether they complacently rules on companies such as Twitter legal experts have expressed doubts that it could be done without an act of Congress Ben Thomas Washington

Twitter President Trump Ben Thomas Washington Executive Congress
State Department inspector general is latest watchdog fired

Weekend Edition Saturday

01:21 min | 3 months ago

State Department inspector general is latest watchdog fired

"Of new and stunning move overnight by president trump he announced there would be a new inspector general at the state department he gave no calls for the removal of the veteran who was in that job this would be notable under any circumstance but it is just the latest in a series of watch dogs and other government officials have been forced out in the trump administration and Pierre senior editor and correspondent Ron Elving joins us Ron thanks for being with us good to be with you Scott I don't know how to begin except to say what what's going on here so the president is asserting control exercising the full extent of his powers over the executive branch including people whose job is to keep an eye on other officials one of whom was Steve clinic the inspector general it's day two was fired late last night members of Congress are telling us this morning that clinic had opened an investigation of secretary Mike Pompeo close ally of the president over the alleged use of the department staff but we have seen the president fired the watchdog in other departments as well as you say last month it was Michalak consent the intelligence community I G. who process the whistleblower complaint last year became an issue in the president's impeachment Christy Graham at health and Human Services who would criticize the corona virus response and the president also removed Glenn Fein who was supposed to oversee some of that two trillion dollars that Congress approved a spending dealing with the corona virus

Senior Editor Scott President Trump Steve Clinic Congress Christy Graham Glenn Fein Pierre Ron Elving Executive Secretary Mike Pompeo Michalak
U.S. moves to drop case against Trump ex-adviser Flynn, who admitted lying to FBI

KCBS 24 Hour News

02:49 min | 3 months ago

U.S. moves to drop case against Trump ex-adviser Flynn, who admitted lying to FBI

"Twenty another setback for the investigation into Russia's influence into our twenty sixteen elections justice department says it's dropping its criminal case against president Donald trump's first national security adviser Michael Flynn case was brought by special counsel Robert Muller who said Flynn had lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in a January twenty seventeen interview for more key CBS news anchors Jeff bell and Patty rising spoke with John dean former White House of former White House legal counsel for president Richard Nixon Mr dean thanks as always for making some time for us to your initial reaction to hearing the news today pretty surprising actually yeah I'm a little a little confusing and also the motion that was filed to dismiss says that the the line was not material to the investigation is the reason they dismissed it well when you dig a little deeper it seems like a really very material to the investigation so this is kind of a pre tax basis to dismiss the charge this is a very naive question but I don't understand how the church just could be dismissed after general Flynn has already pleaded guilty to the judge the judge Solomon may not understand that either but he he has to find the rule on that whether or not the case can be dismissed the justice department is arguing that he really doesn't have anything to rule on that once they pull the case away that there's no discretion left for the judge to decide I think the judge is going to see it differently and we're going to have more of a hearing on this influx some of this out when asked about William Barr the Attorney General who was signed an outside prosecutor to review the justice department's case that was rather unusual move was it not it's been done before but typically in charges of misconduct by somebody in the department it's not typically done in routine criminal investigations but he's done it a number he has a number of Russia probe investigations under this kind of review we also not only the use of Saint Louis U. S. attorneys got want to Connecticut looking at other aspects of the case and the shopping until they find somebody who will disagree with the way the original prosecution was brought and dismiss it are there ongoing concerns about interference in the twenty twenty election there are as as special counsel Miller testified the guy even a year ago that the heat there were ongoing efforts by the Russians to interfere with our twenty twenty election the government the executive branch is doing nothing the Congress has been leased the house had been wringing his hands about it and expressing

Miller Executive Connecticut Saint Louis U. S. Attorney Mr Dean Richard Nixon White House John Dean CBS Special Counsel Michael Flynn Congress Russia Justice Department Prosecutor William Barr Solomon Legal Counsel
Gov. Abbott calls for the release of woman who reopened salon despite state's COVID orders

Glenn Beck

00:36 sec | 3 months ago

Gov. Abbott calls for the release of woman who reopened salon despite state's COVID orders

"Case of a Dallas hairstylist jailed for opening her salon in violation of covered nineteen restrictions causing a political back and forth saying that she had no other way to feed her family Shelly Luther re opened her business salon ala mode a week ago in violation of city county and state orders judge Eric Moore you gave her seven days in jail I wish you would just let her go Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton she's been fine she's already been in jail little rock now more E. a and a dozen of his fellow civil district judges all of them Democrats have written back to Paxton calling his comments in a proper attempt by the executive branch to interfere with the judicial branch of state

City County Eric Moore Ken Paxton Dallas Shelly Luther Texas Attorney Executive
AI in the US Federal Government  Interview with Suzette Kent, US Federal CIO

AI Today Podcast: Artificial Intelligence Insights, Experts, and Opinion

08:51 min | 3 months ago

AI in the US Federal Government Interview with Suzette Kent, US Federal CIO

"Hello and welcome to the today. Podcast I'm your host Kathleen Walsh. I'm your host Ronald Schmoozer. Our guest today is who's that. Who's the federal chief information officer of the United States? Hi thank you so much for joining us on today. Well thank you Kathleen. Nice to join you. Yeah welcome Suzanne and thanks for joining us today. We'd like to start by having you introduce yourself to our listeners. Tell them a little bit about your background. And your current role as Federal Cio Berlin Kathleen Ryan through that Canon. The federal chief information officer and that role. I have the our pleasure of working with all the agencies of the Federal Government Executive Branch. And how we use technology. That's both the policies as well as a looking at how agencies actually perform against those policies and intense. So it's an exciting face because the most important thing is how we use technology to serve mission and I came to the federal government after almost thirty in industry most of that in financial services show when we think about many concepts particularly around. Hey I for use of delivering services to citizens the importance of privacy and transparency and ethics. Many of those things were part of my career in the private sector so happy to join you today really excited about this topic. Because it's one of the things that as I look across. All the technology areas that are part of the role of the Federal Cio. The opportunities here and the come in across the agencies is really important in this area. You know that's really great because you know. Artificial intelligence is a transformative. Technology is transforming industry and society and governments across the board. It's part of what we've been really thrilled to cover as part of our now hundred forty or so episodes of today plus all of our research. So it's really exciting to see that the federal government United States has made a priority. So where do you see federal agencies today in their adoption? That's a great question Ron and I actually think it's across the board and I'll share some examples of what I mean by that but I'm GonNa Start with emphasizing the way you open the question investment in a I both in private sector and in use inside. The federal government is a priority of this administration and there have been multiple statements and commitments about that and most of the examples and things that I'm going to share. Obviously were about what we're doing inside the federal government and what agencies are doing but but your question I see it across the board and what I mean by that is some agencies like Department of Energy and Dod Nath. Nsf COMMERCE HHS. They're more than and they range from. Having formal focus business units and teen data curation expanded infrastructure in a multitude of projects and investments. And their own you know high performance computing capabilities and other agencies like va PSA labor transportation and interior. They may be in a little different place. And maybe in some cases not as mature across that entire spectrum of investments but they have targeted mission project. They've pilot initiatives they're driving maturity of data capabilities their computer capabilities and workforce skills development and of course every single agency has opportunity to use a AI as it's embedded in many of the products that we're getting from our commercial vendor partners so they're bringing in elements of Automation Analytical Advancement. Hey I and some of those mature data use capabilities as we leveraged commercially available product. So that kind of a broad spectrum across all the agencies yeah that's a really good overview and I know that for our listeners who have been following us for quite some time we've interviewed various leaders from government and I think that every agency does have their own adoption and maturity but it's really nice and refreshing to see that everybody is working towards that. I know that the United States also wants to train an AI. Ready Workforce as we continue to bring ai into every aspect of our lives. It's important that we have a workforce that's able to feel comfortable and work with and Bill. So can you share with us what that means to have an AI? Ready Workforce how the US government plans to get a already workforce. And maybe what? Some of the long term projections are for this type of training. This is one of your questions that I was most excited about and so I will do bear with me kind of for a longer answer on this because an angry ready workforce is really a big statement. It's an important commitment as well because the goal extends beyond the technical workforce to our entire workforce the missions face and how we interact with the American people. What makes a difference technology versus? Some of the things that we've seen in history is that this is really driving a paradigm shift and what I mean. By that is many of her legacy technologies. They captured aided they move data. They store it. They present it but largely the State Action John Interpretations for she'll done by people and as we look at a I the human land and people at interpretation. Does it change but the capacity and the capabilities that we have changed significantly. And I'll give you an example of shared in the past one of the things I was very excited about. It was one of my favorite simulations that combine weather data transportation data power grid data labor and Commerce data to answer really complex question or a simple question with a lot of complex factors as. Where's the optimal placement response teams during the hurricane? So you had to look at kind of. Where is the weather impact can be made? And what the impact of water and wind on road power. Where would people be they somewhere? They worked in where they live. And that makes us think differently about all the people who have to be involved in building that capability beyond technicians deep mission expert individuals who understand implications of the mission. And so with that kind of long answer. I'll take it a second step and then talk about actual training. I was recently visiting one of our university chains who are recipients from some federal grant. Ai and they were taking that scenario that I just mentioned to even further step by saying if we know what's going to happen. How can we recover faster? Where will there be treason degree that needs to be removed? And what is the workforce that we need to repair flood damage not only use the capabilities to minimize impact to speed up recovery? When you think about this type of scenario that fundamentally changes are end to end workforce those designing and developing from a technical stage. Those are part of the mission. The subject matter expertise in multiple kind of rings of impact that scenario so to train our workforce to leverage the powerful capabilities. We need not only but commitment from the technical side but mission operations in the business teams who understand and have the insight to help us identify e contract and reconstruct some of those complex interactions and in all of that for the citizens that were serving. We have to invest in the transparency in plain ability. Of how both that data and technology are being used so it is a very different approach to technical operational and service delivery and the way that we are looking at. The training is kind of end. Those different components hands on skill but literacy in. How a an information is used and heard the term Dev ops in development but how we empower our in the workforce through the business processes changes how we design and deliver the capabilities because we have to expand it throughout the entire business process from the genesis of the data to the experience of the end user. So that is somewhat of a long winded answer. That part of the transformational capability when you actually address the entire flow from end to end.

Federal Government United States AI Chief Information Officer Federal Government Executive B Kathleen Walsh Federal Cio Cio Berlin Kathleen Ryan Ronald Schmoozer Suzanne Canon RON Dod Nath Department Of Energy John Interpretations
"A Medically Induced Economic Coma"

Why It Matters

09:36 min | 4 months ago

"A Medically Induced Economic Coma"

"So the Wyatt matters team like everyone else is home and it's hard things are scary. I don't know about you but I've been having endless video chats with my friends and family and aside from drinking wine while showing off completed puzzles or homemade bread. We're mostly talking about two topics health and the economy we bounce back and forth what starts as a question about how someone's feeling turns into an update about who lost their job. These conversations are happening everywhere. Nobody wants to get sick. Nobody wants to lose their job. And it can feel like it's one or the other as people deal with these worries. Some politicians and business leaders have called for a return to work in order to save the economy even at the expense of lives. It just keeps coming up and so we decided. Hey let's pick up the phone and ask two of our fellows to help us understand the problem. One an expert on health and the other an expert on the economy. Just a heads up that this episode is going to have a different style than our other shows. It's essentially two conversations without most of our usual music and narration and possess. Don't worry though we'll be back to our regular format and non corona virus programming for a season to premiere in two weeks. But for now I'm Gabrielle. Sierra and this is why it matters today saving the economy and saving lives. Do we have to choose okay? First Tomboy key senior fellow for Global Health at the council. He's getting a lot of these calls so hopefully he's not tired of answering Tom. Blakey how are you? I'm okay grappling with the shutdown. Like everyone else. Yeah what is your work from home situation? She asks while sitting in her closet so he answers while sitting in my in my bedroom where we have three small kids. So you know. That's a challenge and we live in the city of DC so there is no great backyard for them to run around in so they bounce around the house. More or less like excited molecules at this so we have officially made it to April. Felt like we would never get here. Longest MARCH ON RECORD. I believe is the expert opinion. Do you think April is going to be worse than March April in the United States will definitely be worse than March? That's because by and large it takes about three weeks for people to start showing clinical symptoms so starting to get physically ill from having contracted the virus. It spreads as everyone knows at this point exponentially with a lot of cases occurring among people who have unreported infections. So I wanna ask you about something that I keep seeing people arguing about on social media even though I'm trying to avoid some of this stuff pretty pretty hard but do you feel like we have to choose between saving the economy and saving lives. No I think saving lives or more specifically keeping people from getting infected is really the only way to save the economy. The reality of this is is that we are not going practically to be able to go back to work until we get this back under control so the best economic policy. We have is health policy. At this moment we can have a bad. Economic impact of this pandemic with good policies will still end up there or we could have a much worse. Economic impact of these with bad health policies plus all lives lost. And I choose the former. But I've heard people say that if we don't spend money saving the economy. Many more lives could be lost in the long run due to recession. So do recessions kill people? They do recessions. Do Kill people. There have been a number of studies that looked at the great recession. We saw health impacts deeply for men and racial and ethnic minorities and it ranged from a lot of our Diseases of despair that exists out there already in terms of suicide or alcohol or substance abuse traffic fatalities safe harm declining fertility. You name it. You see that in recessions and we just saw a dozen years ago so we're going to see that again but again. The option here is not preventing recession by allowing this virus. Free Rein to run rampant. It's we want this to be a shorter recession or we want this to be a deeper and longer recession so the idea is to focus sort of on the immediate and the short term and that will help naturally the long-term absolutely know China's starting head back to work South Korea which had its first case the same day the United States head. Its first case is back to work. You know we can do this. We got off to an awfully slow start but it can be done in the sooner we can do it. The better for us both from an economic and health perspective. So I've read that half. The national stockpile of ventilators has already been sent out. Which sounds really scary. So if we want to stimulate the economy and fight the pandemic at the same time. I don't really understand why we can't put more people to work making masks the protective gear the ventilator is the things we need so we can but we need to mandate this. They're going to be still supply chain issues about. Can we make all the components? Can we get all that but you know we can manage that? What is difficult to manage is to be doing this in April instead of doing it in January February. You've in early March. So what choices has the US made in situations like this in the past? Are there any past success stories? We can emulate USO in the past in World War Two and in the Korean War. We granted the executive branch broad authority to regulate industry so that we could ramp up supplies that are needed for the nation's offense. We are in that kind of moment now. The president is talking about doing that this week. On a limited basis. And that's great and I'm glad for it and we should but we are awfully late for this wave but here's one thing. I do emphasize unfortunately. Is that even when we get this under control? This isn't going away. This is just the first wave of this now. If we can manage to get ahead of it we can do what some other nations have done which is have good surveillance and testing and really minimize the effect of future waves. But until there's a vaccine are really effective therapeutic set can reduce people from getting sick from this. We're going to keep seeing waves at this point. There're more than a million cases globally. It's a virus said isn't going to go away. There's signs that it's going to go away with weather so ramping up production is good for those second ways. I'd just wish we had done it earlier. So is good for this wave two. So has the timeline on a vaccine. Become any clear so it's a year and a year and a half away. That's what we're looking at. The other thing to know about the vaccine is once we have it. We still have to make it in the kind of volumes that can address people's needs you know how do we do that? But even once back scene becomes available. We'll take a little time for everyone to get it so I shouldn't be pending all my hopes to that vaccine Not In the short term in the long term. I'm a believer in human innovation. What I do think you need for that to have. Its effect is realistic and honest. Assessment of the challenges we face in the urgency in addressing them. But when you have that I fundamentally believe in us to have that innovation to address that we just need to mobilize it sooner than we have been. What does the endgame of this pandemic look like to you? The medium-term and people should be honest about this. So I'm going to try to be in. This podcast is that you know even in countries that have done well with this. They're still seeing cases. They get cases from people returning from abroad with infections like sparks. You know you need to control before they set off at wildfire. That's going to be the reality for a year or two years with this virus that we will have that risk so it. This is not going to immediately go back to the way it was. That's the medium-term this the long term is there only really to either. We develop a vaccine or at least sixty percent of the population needs to become immune the challenge with the latter route. Is it will come at a great human cost so I would like to bet on the former.

United States Senior Fellow For Global Healt USO Blakey DC Sierra TOM China South Korea President Trump Executive
Don Tamaki on Stop Repeating History

Model Majority Podcast

11:15 min | 4 months ago

Don Tamaki on Stop Repeating History

"Is the background? And the purpose and the goal of the Stop Repeating history campaign that you are a Parv well as the listeners know in one thousand nine hundred eighty two almost one hundred twenty thousand Americans of Japanese ancestry were removed on the say so of the government alone and put in in American style concentration camps three individuals charged the challenge government in that process. Read Komatsu Gordon Arabiya. She and Menu Suey. And those cases were heard in nineteen forty three and forty four and the Supreme Court to their surprise ruled against them and those cases stood for almost thirty seven years for the proposition that without trial without evidence entire racial group. Lose your freedom. Their property and be imprisoned indefinitely by accident thirty seven years later in the nineteen eighties of secret intelligence reports from the army the navy the FBI were found. They surfaced all of which admitted japanese-americans Americans oppose no threat in he committed no wrong and Department of Justice lawyers urging their higher ups basically to tell the truth and not lied to the US Supreme Court and on that basis. We assembled hey legal team to represent all three lead against I was on the legal team representing Redcar. Matsu and based on that evidence of misconduct really abusive power lies in order to manipulate. The of those cases of Fred Karma sues a criminal conviction for Divine. The military orders were overturned and In separate actions the convictions of coordinator beyond Xinmin Yasui and the legal team basically educated the public about what happened when trump announced his travel ban in January twenty. Seventeen we reconvene these legal teams In order to to work with the quarterbacks who center in Seattle and the law firm of Aken Gump to represent the adult children of Fred. Komatsu Corden here beyond Menu. Sui Basically make brief was to remind the court that When they when the court stood down and did not ask questions and accepted the government's claim that doing this Drastic separation civil liberties made the nation safer. It was a civil liberties disaster. So we filed amicus brief Basically to urge the court to examine whether the travel ban Really made the nation safer or in fact was merely fulfillment by trump campaign. Promise that he made repeatedly on the campaign trail down the borders to Muslims and American families of entering the country. Saturday in two thousand eighteen. The court has upheld the travel ban. Five four but we had launched a public education campaign called stop repeating history in order to also inform the public. What had happened and that it ought not to be repeated so I love to hear what your thought is in your whole team. Start when you saw. The travel ban announced his clearly. You being intimately involved in the overturning of the Coronado to indicated by Ashi end the convictions node. The history in intimately well. What kind of parallels did you see that in your mind in your team's mind Signaled the fact that the travel ban against Muslims and a lot of refugees as well is literally in your organization's word repeating history. We were enormously disappointed and angered by. The court's decision was cited by five to four majority. So there was a divided and we thought it was an opportunity for the court to once and for all reverse in truth. Komatsu versus the United States. Judge Chief Justice Roberts did provide lip service have met decision basically saying the core mottes who was wrong. The day was decided but in the same breath join the majority polling the travel ban which in our mind reinforced the worst and most dangerous aspects of Karma swoop versus the United States which was when the executive branch the president invokes. National Security. Courts will stand down. They'll abdicate their traditional constitutional role of being a check and balance on the presidency. And the problem with that is when you have an executive branch which is gone rogue and would certainly happened in nineteen forty two and it's happening now. It opens the door for tremendous abuse of power in the lesson of monsoon. Is that when there is no check and balance The temptation for political leaders to Fabricate facts to misrepresent Epa evidence in order to manipulate the outcome of in this case Major Supreme Court cases that temptation becomes irresistible and the founders of this country certainly understood that every high school civics students knows that we have three branches of government. We have executive branch the Presidency the legislative branch. Which is Congress and the judiciary the cords? Each are coequal each. You're supposed to be a check and balance on the other and the genius of the system was it was really designed to thwart the rise of kings in tyrants and when those systems fail as they did for Japanese Americans. This is how dictators get started. You have in this case of President. Exercising unfettered power and the consequences are severe. You have children being separated from their parents. You have a president who targets minorities whether they be immigrants muslim-serb refugees and the latest attacks are on Asian American specifically Chinese Americans by labeling a global pandemic as a quote Chinese virus and institutions are supposed to be check and balance on that kind of abuse and we see history repeating itself all over again. I want to dive in a little bit. Into the point you made about Fabricating Facts to litigate in front of Supreme Court which is pretty mind boggling for everyday citizens to even contemplate you know we generally hold the Supreme Court to pretty high esteem is the highest core of the land is the final. I call or final decider on a lot of highly controversial disputed issues but to your point people or government in this case in particular actually lied to the Supreme Court to get their position one. And you have a lot of experience with that in the overturning of the quartermaster case. I think that is essentially. What you your team discovered that lets you even the possibility that you could overturn the Supreme Court case which again too many people's minds that is the final decision right when the Supreme Court says something whether you decide whether you agree with it or not it is done but of course they are edge cases and exceptions to that. Could you tell us about? Maybe your experience overturning. The Komatsu case will was the discovery of that. Were the lies that were discovered that. Lets you guys even being able to do this? And then of course tying to what we are experiencing right now whether it's the Muslim ban or potentially other offer things can happen in the future. While thirty seven years after the fact the Supreme Court cases decided Komatsu here she knew. Sui In nineteen forty three and forty four thirty seven years after that secret intelligence reports were discovered by accident by researchers Peter Irons and Heiko Yoshinaga hurt sick. Which really all that. The government in order to manipulate the outcome of these landmark Supreme Court cases fabricated evidence and even burn them and despite the protestations of Department of Justice official soon attorneys who urged their superiors that they ought not to be lying to the Supreme Court to clarify. We did not over earned the decision. What happened was basically Before nearby she in ministry five the orders for this bass removal. They were charged and convicted with Criminal violations and Suffered criminal penalties and we reopen these cases. A writ of error was the only device reopen these ancient cases. That would've otherwise been time. Barred by this limitation isn't criminal writ calls rhetoric quorum notice which allows litigation to reopen their case to clear their name and doesn't give them any money as and give back the years that they lost. They can remove their criminal. Convictions we won on those. The government appealed their loss and then they withdrew their appeal in our system. Only the loser can appeal not the winner and so the the withdrawal of the appeal was a very strategic. Move to keep it out of the. Us Supreme Court And only the court supreme court can reverse itself now when the trump versus quiet case came up in twenty eighteen. That was an opportunity for the court squarely. Look at the facts Komatsu because there were very similar to the travel ban and actually reverse it reverse that case and sadly the court didn't take that

Supreme Court Government Komatsu Major Supreme Court Komatsu Gordon Arabiya Department Of Justice Komatsu Corden Executive SUI President Trump FBI Judge Chief Justice Roberts Parv Fred Karma Coronado National Security Seattle
Leadership During Difficult Times

The Strategerist

08:09 min | 4 months ago

Leadership During Difficult Times

"Guest on this episode of the strategic is Keith Hennessy. These days he teaches at the Stanford Graduate School of Business Stanford Law School and his leadership fellow at the Bush Institute where he's teaching our leadership program sessions during the Bush administration. Though Keith was the assistant to the president for economic policy was the director of the National Economic Council during the financial crisis in two thousand seven and two thousand eight so those days Keith was working around the clock to blunt the impact of that financial crisis on on our economy. So we thought it'd be interesting today to hear about that experience while we're reacting to the cove in nineteen pandemic. That's happening right now. Keith thank you so much for taking time while your social distancing to call in happy to help hello from Palo Alto California. Well first off. Can you paint a picture of what it's like to be a decision maker in government during a time like this because I know right now? I'm watching the news. And there's just a constant stream of information things are changing by the minute and some of it is is fact some of it is conjecture. Some of it is somewhere in between. What's that stream of information like inside the White House and in our government? Yeah well an advantage. You have when you're working in the White House is that you get you. Get the best information that's out there. I always joke that one of the wonderful privileges. You can pick up the phone call pretty much anyone in the world and say. I need to help the president understand about your area of expertise. Can you spend some time with me? The person will always say yes. And then you have. You have a tremendous Roster of experts working in the government and then also outside of government Who can help feed you information? So the information tends to find you and if it doesn't you've you've got a team of talented people who can go find out The best available answer to any question. That's out there but there definitely is sort of a fog of war we're You think you know what's going on and you probably have a better picture than almost anyone else But there are a lot of unknowns. There are a lot of things that You know that you're just making educated guesses at so that's tough in hindsight This is one of the big mistakes. In terms of historic analysis is in hindsight. It is very easy to forget the things that now seem obvious. But we're not obvious time You know the biggest mistake about hindsight announces at the time. You didn't know what was going to happen next. And while you thought you knew what your actions and decisions might Might produce you're not always certain And then the other thing is is stressful And so you learn how individuals react to stressful environments and then you learn how teams React to stressful environments and you know I think it also depends on how long the crisis Lassen how long the pressure is applied. It's one thing to be in a stressful situation for days and weeks. It's a whole another thing to be in it for weeks and months and wears on people and In overtime that takes a toll because the people who are making these decisions are after all humans right. That's actually kind of interesting. And and so how? How do you keep team functioning under these kind of in under this kind of situation? And where might we might be doing this for a long time? Yeah I'm not sure I have many tricks. We were in in one respect. We were fortunate in that the the financial crisis in two thousand eight hit in year eight. So of the Bush team We knew how to operate as a team. We knew how the mechanisms of governments worked on a lot of US had four or five or six or seven years under our belts working for this president working with each other So we had those advantages of experience and know each other and frankly had a really good team In that last year With with Hank Paulson sort of as the the field. General for the president with Ben Bernanke over at the Fed and Kevin Warsh And with a lot of amazing people internally and so that teen Kinda you know it means that you don't have to worry about those aspects of it. You can just focus on the crisis of hand. So we had a bunch of pros. We had a bunch of pros. Who knew how to work together. And then you know you just you kind of say look. There will be time to sleep and time to rest on the back end of this. We're just going to keep pushing basically because we have to. I think the other thing is the morale is really important and and Bush thing. We were really fortunate because the morale comes in large part from the president You know the morale and the tone I always say that the tone in the White House is eighty percent set by the president and twenty percent by the White House Chief of staff and we had a president and a chief of staff who were creating a tone and environment where the rest of us didn't have to worry about the politics We could basically just focus on. What was the? What was the best policy? And how do we try to make it happen? So then you mentioned the that you knew how the government works and the government with all of its departments and with experts who sometimes have competing priorities. So in general strokes. Can you talk about how to how these departments all work together and coordinate during a crisis like this? Well that's what the White House policy councils are for. At the time we had four of them there are now three In the White House of the National Security Council is the granddaddy of them all And the National Economic Council in the Domestic Policy Councils And I worked in a on the National Economic Council staff so these are people who work in the White House for the president and Their job is to coordinate policy making in their in their area for the All the information that comes in for the president goes through the Policy Council to sort of structure. It make sure the presence president knows what's going on and what that best information is and in particular because the president has got a lot of advisers each of whom is responsible for looking at a part of the problem and the Policy Council Stash. Job is to make sure that the president has the information that they need to look at the whole problem. And so when you run one of these Policy cancels you get very good at running meetings and conference calls to pull all the advisers together To to compare information to figure out what decisions the president to make and then to make sure that the president hears from all of you know his advisors that he needs to we. We would joke that. Our job was to set up clean fights cleaner where you'd have conflicting advice. The you know one team advisors would set a precedent you do X. And other advisers would say the president should do why you. WanNa make sure the president gets the information. He needs so that he can make that decision and then when he makes the decision that everybody throughout the executive branch actually executes. Does what the president wants to do right so you would actually present. Exxon wide both team ex ante y presented the president. Let him make that decision. Yeah and I shouldn't describe as really two teams that a mismatch speak mistaken. Are My these are. These are different advisors who were all part of the president skiing. But right right right just disagree on a particular question and You know these. These decisions are hard. None of the options are particularly good. Because you're always over constrained But there are just different. Trade offs different choices that the advisers would make. And what you WANNA do. Is You want to hear the president. Have the president here. Those arguments be able to push the advisers. And then say okay. Here's what we're going to do You know the privilege of working for the president. Is You get to be in the room to make the argument or the option that you think you should make. And then when he hasn't sides it you've got to go out there and execute even if he went with The other option one that you didn't recommend be interesting thing about the financial crisis is that there were a lot fewer disagreements about what to do among

President Trump White House Assistant To The President Keith Hennessy National Economic Council Bush Bush Institute Stanford Graduate School Of Bu Palo Alto California Policy Council United States Exxon National Security Council Director Hank Paulson Ben Bernanke Kevin Warsh
Frank Kameny: Father of the Gay Rights Movement

Making Gay History

08:24 min | 5 months ago

Frank Kameny: Father of the Gay Rights Movement

"Thought take us back to the past and re introduce you to some of the people who spirit and determination and grit with me up every day especially now one of those people is Frank. Cammie a Harvard. Phd Astronomer. Who was fired from his government job in one thousand nine hundred fifty seven because he was a homosexual. Frank wound up becoming one of the most militant and important thinkers leaders of the LGBTQ civil rights movement long before it was called the LGBTQ civil rights movement interview with Frank Caveney June third nineteen eighty nine at the home of Frank Camera in Washington. Dc interviewer is Eric. Marcus I arrived in. Candy's House on a mild early. June day he lives in a modest two story brick colonial and leafy prosperous neighborhood just outside the center of the city a house was bit scruffy around the edges and the law needed attention to frank re me at the door wearing a white button-down shirt and grey slacks. He looked like a retired scientists out of central casting. And he also has a pit scruffy around the edges. We went directly to Frank's office on my goodness his office. There were stacks of files and unidentifiable. Dust covered piles everywhere. Frank took a seat behind his desk motion to sit and was often running. Even before I had the chance to clear my lapel mic to his shirt from the way he spoke you think he was addressing a lecture hall filled with hundreds instead of an audience of just one. You will learn when you talk to me that I cast my sentences by putting all the modifying clauses and word no at the beginning and you have to listen and go along and ultimately you'll find what it is that I am modify so as much as them so I was called in and said that we have information which leads us to believe that you are a homosexual. Do you have any comment? I said watch the information they said. We can't tell you I said well then I can't give you an answer. You don't deserve it and it and in any case this is none of your business. Which GOT THEM UPSET? Because bureaucrats never liked to be told something is none of their business that basically with the interview ultimately It resulted in my termination late. That year was shot. Yes of course and they come into your no there you the way. The government does anything they usually will let her. And they say we're dismissing it because you're homosexuality. Such firings were not uncommon in those in that period. Depressed naturally do if I had no source of income and the next the next two or three years were extremely difficult. In fact by the time I got into nineteen fifty nine. I was living for about eight months on twenty cents worth of food today which even by nineteen fifty nine prices. was not terribly much. It was a it was a great day when I could afford five cents more and put up a part of butter on my mashed potato. Meanwhile by that time I had decided that Basically what this amounted to a declaration of war against me by government a I don't grant my government the right to declare war against me and B. I tend not to lose my wars. I went through such A. Po Procedures as they were was take you through the lower level of the bureaucracy and then On the philosophy that ultimately the head of the executive branch of the government is the president. You go to the top and I have always gone to the top on these things so I worked my way right on up without success ultimately to letters to the President. I my feeling is that you always pursue things to their final conclusion. I was put in touch with a local attorney. Who had been a congressman and who was willing than having exhausted everything. My having exhausted everything to take my case on a contingent fee basis. I had no money in ninety sixty the. Us Court of Appeals turned it down and he indicated that he felt it was hopeless and therefore he didn't want to pursue it further. I said I did so. He gave me a copy of the Supreme Court. Rules told me about filing pro se documents pro for yourself and in theory any citizen can any time do anything that a lawyer will do can do it for himself if he chooses. Not Always wise but you have the prerogative under our system. Always doing it for yourself. You're you're not required to have a lawyer. I had the role book a familiar with Supreme Court procedures. It's a double round. You have to Knox Gore your first or to your first effort is a knock at the door to say. Will you let me? Won't you let me in? And if they say no that ends it if they say yes then you prepare all your bruce and really go out later. Yes and the first knock is quote a petition for rid of surgery and so he gave me some other partition. And whenever I had questions my philosophy then as now is I pay for government with my taxes therefore they serve me so if I had questions I called up. The supreme quarter walked over there and said here's my question. Give me an answer which they did very nicely. Not The not the justice obviously and I also drafted and filed my own petition. The government put then put its disqualification of gays under the rubric of Immoral Conduct. The word simply does not belong in any issue in this country morality as a matter of personal opinion and individual belief on which any American citizen they hold any view he wishes and upon which the government has no proper power or authority to have any of you at all. But more than that you then. Having stated a general principle you have to apply adverse specifically and pointedly to the case at hand and not. Was that in. My view. Homosexuality is not only not immoral. But is affirmatively moral and that was the theme that underlay that and that was a direct address to the government's policy and it had to be said nobody else had ever started that I know of and and any kind of a formal court president or or other other formal. Pleading and in March not unpredictably came the letter as I recall. It was on blue paper. I still have upstairs for signed by a Chief Justice Warren indicating that I had been sir. Cherie had been denied that ended the formal case. The battle went on for Another fourteen years with the government essentially did is they turned in intellectual bookish into a radical. Thank you for using that word. I have had cases over the years that I've handled of Meek mild on assertive unaggressive people who just WanNa go about doing their work and suddenly they are hit hard. They are trump pulled upon with the hobnail boots and suddenly it does exactly that it radicalize is them and off. They go marching militantly and case after case after case so anyway my sixty one you had become radicalized very much so very much so so anyway so we founded the organization and now the movement of those days and I say this next knocked critically and not necessarily derogatorily because it was a very very very different era we were. We were centers. We were perverts. You have your long litany of pejoratives. There was absolute. We knocked thing. What so ever which anybody hurt at anytime anywhere at all which was other than negative nothing and so the movement. Predictably in retrospect responded accordingly was the nature

Frank President Trump Frank Caveney Supreme Court Frank Camera Us Court Of Appeals Harvard Cammie Marcus Candy Eric Meek Chief Justice Warren Depressed Knox Gore Washington Congressman Attorney Executive
We must have an agenda. If we don't, the one that gets set for us, will not be good enough

The Breakdown with Shaun King

07:58 min | 5 months ago

We must have an agenda. If we don't, the one that gets set for us, will not be good enough

"First off before we get all the way into today's episode. I just WANNA check on you for a minute. Are you doing? Are you hanging in there? This is a very very tough time for so many of you. Many of our listeners have already started to email me. Dm Me and and reach out to me and let me know that just struggling in a very real way not just not just the emotionally which is real not just mentally and that's real but you're struggling financially You are struggling physically to hold it all together. Many of you have lost your jobs. You've lost your income and we don't necessarily know where the end is going to be and don't understand what's next and what's going to be happening in the days and weeks ahead and it's part of why. I want to have today's episode episode number one ninety nine. I want to have it on a key. Point that I think is at the center of my life of my leadership of the book that I wrote that comes out in April and I will talk more about that next week as well. But when you don't have an agenda as a person as a community as a nation as as a group of people when the people you love and care about don't have an agenda don't have a plan or a strategy people will take advantage of you. Do you understand what I'm saying that as you are as you are having a hard time right now as you see that hard times are about to come your way as we face. This corona virus pandemic as we face national unemployment levels that we've never seen in modern American history as as scientists suggest that huge percentage of Americans will likely get the corona virus in that it will hit certain communities way harder than others as we see nations like Italy and others have Ford five hundred people a day dying from the impact of Corona virus. If we don't have a plan for our family for our community for the Group of people that we most identify with and listen. I'm just going to be transparent if that's your ethnic group if that's your nationality if that's your economic group if it's working people if we don't have plans and strategies in place right now. I need you to understand that. Corporations and people in power are are developing their own strategies. And what's going to be happening today through the weekend and particularly next week? Is that the United States government from the White House from the House the Senate will see it also in court. Systems will see it. In governor's offices state legislatures city. Councils mayor's offices they are going to be making decisions. District Attorney's offices police departments. They are going to be making decisions on their agenda on their plan on their strategy. Moving forward and if we don't tell them what our preferences are what our needs are what our our requirements as part of that strategy are if we don't say those things out loud do not assume ever that they are going to just because they love you and care about. You are going to integrate your needs into their agenda. Do you hear what I'm saying right now. Our local state and federal government is about to make huge decisions on bailouts on cash infusions on policy shifts and changes. And if we aren't telling them exactly what they need to do with that if we aren't saying specifically that you need policy a B C and D in there. They're not GONNA put it in there. Here's here's what I know in. It's what you know in. This crosses all party lines. This crosses nationality ethnicity faith religion age. Most of our government officials do not act day in and day out with the best interest of every day Americans in mind. They don't I don't believe it. They often act with the best interest of their donors in mind with their backers in mind but rarely do government officials act with the best interest of the masses in mind in great part particularly when we start talking about members of the House and Senate and of the executive branch they have not been apart of the everyday class of Americans in so long that they don't even understand often the needs and struggles of everyday people and the only way they are going to include our priorities in their bailouts in their legislation in their packages. The only way they're going to include us in their agenda is if we demanded. And here's here's what? I have to teach even Lynn. We demand that they include our priorities in their agenda even then. We only get a fraction of our priorities. I wish you could see my hands right now but I have. My hands stretched out far to the left into the right. You have to give somebody a huge number of priorities with the reality that they are only going to adopt some at. My hands are getting smaller and smaller and smaller. They are only going to adopt some of those priorities. But if you don't give them any priorities if you don't give them an agenda at all you get nothing. Do you hear me if you don't say listen. You need to include these nineteen things in whatever legislation you pass if you don't say those nineteen things you you're not gonna get anything because what they'll do is they'll they'll squish those nineteen down and they might only take three of your policy points but if you only give them one or none you'll get nothing it's the it's the beauty of having a big vision. A big agenda. Do you understand what I'm saying? It's the beauty of asking for lot. Knowing that the the the the meat grinder the the sausage factory of of our government will grind that thing down to something much less than what you were originally fighting for. So if you're fighting for a big agenda it's GonNa get squished down to something much smaller but if you're fighting for little biddy agenda it's still going to squish down normally to nothing and if you're not fighting for anything at all that's exactly what you're going to get

Senate United States White House Ford Italy Lynn Executive
An Internal Pandemic Document Shows the Coronavirus Gives Trump Extraordinary Powers

Thom Hartmann

08:47 min | 5 months ago

An Internal Pandemic Document Shows the Coronavirus Gives Trump Extraordinary Powers

"You were a brilliant piece for the nation title and internal pandemic document shows the coronavirus gives trump extraordinary powers explained so many people that I realized about and then exit is that under the conditions of one executive branch and the president actually games as I mentioned in that article external powers to respond to that crisis and while I'm not opposed in principle to which is a good thing and yeah I don't think it's necessarily that most experts will tell you that emergency powers are necessary to meet emergencies with the question becomes how does Paris our pride and sort of how they are pursued and when you look at the agency said a lot of the powers on one of the questions and protection which includes most recognizable among its components the border patrol on their money EDG said will receive the most power and when you look at you know the current and how hard line immigration policies then you can see what you no one can one can imagine needs power is being used to pursue you know the administration's political goals as opposed to you know just meeting the crest of the epidemic and that really I think with the crux of the concern for from the end of the story right the Hey it was maybe two months ago I did a I did a whole riff about it here on this program I don't believe we have the author of the article on probably should have but there was a fascinating article in one of the you know more larger and credible publications you know something like the Atlantic or the New Yorker or or possibly a nation and and frankly I don't remember I'm sorry that that pointed out that the customs and border patrol isn't part of or is only peripherally part of the normal chain of command within the executive branch and has been in some ways modified in some way is just you know outside of the normal procedures adapted itself to become basically trump's private little police force is version of you know what what is it yeah I know I I I realize the the weakness of **** analogies but it we saw Hitler do this with the SS you know he had his own basically you know a a military or a a clause I military full police power agency that answer directly to the executive to what extent if that is the case or if that becomes the case and customs and border patrol or specifically ice I believe this article is about how ice is becoming basically try trump's shock troops and has the potential to and he's throwing money at them like there's no tomorrow has the potential to become his own private militant military that that could even behave beyond their own statutory mandate to what extent is that a can a concern or is that something you didn't encounter in writing this so I was concerned if you want to go ahead we can made from an individual the Pentagon document detailing border patrols coordination with in military because recalled that trump declared a national emergency over the undocumented immigration that that exists at the southern border and so now not only is birth control operating with you know from the research is in that I've had before and you know essentially a lot more freedom to sort of pursuing more aggressive response integration and then under any preceding the ministrations we're also working with the military on U. S. soil which of course there are certain legal limitations on the military to do doesn't hasta comitatus prevent that or does that simply prevent them from arresting Americans it is generally it's very hard to get necessary like Republicans but when you declare a national emergency as trump at over I documented the conditions that can use anything about so if you look at the documents that were provided to me what they show is that our teams class support role with border patrol center certain things allowed to do and there's certain things or not I think it's a bit of you know miss languages that are there purely support when you have essentially you know marines and National Guard and things like that you know operating with guns and just say that they won't you know they're not going to actually do anything directly I think you're gonna see a sort of mission creep in the same way that you do with any sort of deployment where you know the armed forces more power and then at the expense of the power of the domestic one agency's response and everything Sir but despite all that he's never really seen the immigration authorities become supercharged in terms of hours after getting in much the passion that you were just describing this as trump other pursued we're talking to Ken Klippenstein his the DC correspondent for the nation the nation dot com is the website his Twitter handle is at Ken Klippenstein can are there indications specific indications I mean that what we're talking about here has moved beyond the abstract into the real that that customs and border patrol or ice or both are beginning to behave in ways that would indicate that they are not responsive to control by the department of homeland security or the justice department or whatever agency might theoretically be in charge of them but instead are beginning to simply do what trump wants I I know that we've seen situations where trump goes down to the border and meets these guys are meets ice guys and they're all wearing Magda hats and stuff like that which is generally prohibited under under you know for federal employees under the normal rules certainly they felt free to ignore those kinds of things but at do we have empirical evidence that it's going to be on that one that I have is based on your money expenses or scheduling department humble journey and what they described to me as a lot of frustration over the inability on that hard to do their jobs when all the money's going on to this particular strategy the customs and border protection edition that there appears to be a live dissension within the ranks among people that you know one would not consider liberal or progressive by any means I'm just thinking that P. P. sort of getting out of control respectively I'm interested in and resources that they now enjoy but the article I think was largely cautionary or at least that was my intention doing it because we don't know yet how they're going to be deployed in response I mean what I got was that internet response plan which describes what they could do you pursuant to an emergency authority at Navistar consolidated under the bush administration a lot of people don't know the history after going in either yeah that's right under the bush administration after nine eleven on the issue the number of executive orders that you know it is it according to circle the team is at least for were aimed at shoring up national plans well again with the wind all kinds of special privileges to be able to respond to an epidemic in today and is very much reflected sort of you know shift away from kind of that single responsible that I'd been sort of how the sacrosanct one time in two words concerning more power in the federal government generally and again I want to stress you know what I mean here I don't think that's necessarily the worst thing I mean are there any such thing as a national emergency and and in some cases the credit thanks to you know respond to that and I feel more comfortable with Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden or president than Donald Trump exactly we have a president here whose you know not just his own personal political orientation the database which she quickly depends on actually over in that question real actually need that is a recipe for trouble and and potentially you know your deployment on board in a way that national security person and maybe putting politics in this direction yeah more than half of Republicans polled and said that bring out the army to restore order in America finally now is months ago right I mean that's that's amazing and Kevin Stein and his pieces in the nation's titled an internal pandemic document shows the corona virus gives trump

President Trump Executive
"executive branch" Discussed on KTAR 92.3FM

KTAR 92.3FM

04:22 min | 5 months ago

"executive branch" Discussed on KTAR 92.3FM

"For those senators Democrat or Republican people were screaming that that criticism comes from the you know the grassroots of rank and file and that's going to probably going to be the case everybody in DC right now the president that the executive branch and the legislative branch are definitely going to take a hit they don't want the economy to tank they want the president to look back at there's nobody that wants to chew I'd get into a recession where we've got negative ten percent negative growth at ten percent yeah bill Marcus you know if the well if unless you're talking about the green new deal Hey I look I I honestly I I can't go that far I do believe that some bill Maher was straight out of he wants recession because trump is worse than a recession there are Democrats remember the delusional thought process of the ran there are some that actually do one in yeah I will say that we'll see how that plays out yeah I might I might say not right but I believe they look at they support agree new deals spending trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars then they don't they don't care about the impact of an economy but there's a reason why they didn't they even the Democrats that supported it wouldn't vote on it now do I understand why people have come out that are trump supporters and daughter but the media was saying and the ridiculous questions that they still ask the president that are just maddening because it doesn't seem like that the media cares about getting to the bottom of the corona virus situation they're more worried about the politics of it so do I understand the doubting of every trump supporter out there over the last month and a half as to how the media is reporting this and therefore questioning the severity or the response of the governments to to be wondering okay are they just doing this to tank the economy to hurt trump no I understand that completely but the fact is the administration now is to the point of making recommendations that are stricter than ninety nine percent of the country so they believe this could be a serious problem and they want to get it out of the way they want to solve this problem the you know I guess that would be the point so we have looked at this from the very beginning if you listen to the show from the very beginning we have said this is a virus it's not political what do we know what don't we know it what you come to the conclusion of its if that's strictly what you're looking at is the fact that we're in the situation that situation right now because they don't know right yep they don't know it's a new virus and they don't know and so as we said the early statistics could they be wrong yeah it might not be three point five percent three point two percent the tally right it might only be one point eight that would still be eighteen times greater than the flu right and if it is twice as contagious as the flu and affect old people more seriously as they believe as the medical people believe is it a problem yeah and the president now recognizes it and has for a while recognize that it is a problem yep but I mean again there's plenty to go around that none of those Democrats on Capitol Hill one a recession they may talk a big you know a game when it comes to green new deal they did move on so it's it is not a this again it's it's it's just not productive it's a given the Democrats want this president to fail at everything they wanted to look bad in every situation but the Democrats and power no bill Maher is a mouthpiece nothing more those on Capitol Hill they're not looking for recession they have to go home and deal with it the same way that the president has to deal with that they're going to get that same criticism in a bad economy eight six six ninety right I'd.

Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' immigration policy allowed to proceed temporarily

10 10 WINS 24 Hour News

00:40 sec | 5 months ago

Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' immigration policy allowed to proceed temporarily

"A judge has ruled for now that the United States can continue sending migrants to Mexico to wait for their immigration hearings in the United States but the legal challenge it's not over Moore now correspondent chucks Iverson a three judge panel with the ninth US circuit court of appeals Friday temporarily stopped president trump's policy to make asylum seekers wait in Mexico while their cases are heard in U. S. immigration courts the administration appealed later Friday in the court ruled that the policy can resume during the legal challenge but the court orders the administration of file written arguments Monday and plaintiffs to file a response Tuesday the White House called the initial ruling reckless and obstructs the executive branch from protecting American

United States Mexico Moore Iverson Donald Trump White House President Trump U. S. Executive
"executive branch" Discussed on We The People

We The People

09:45 min | 7 months ago

"executive branch" Discussed on We The People

"The you know the sort of the article too Authority for their their office Our Immune from compelled testimony before Congress. Jeff this is not the first time we've heard this argument. This is the argument that the George George W Bush administration had made before Judge John Bates in two thousand seven in litigation over house. Judiciary subpoenas to former White House counsel L.. Harriet Myers and former White House. Chief of Staff Andy Bolton and the sort of Judge Bates in that decision had written I think very very thorough careful and to my mind unanswerable explanation for why there certainly could be sorry. Josh Bolten there could could be Individual sort of privilege assertions that these advisors were allowed to make when they appeared for testimony but basically putting them to bed. The idea that there there was such a thing as a categorical. Absolute testimonial munity that prevented these advisers from being called to the congressional witness stand for any purpose. Now that was only the District Court decision The appeal of that decision was basically settled after the interview. Election gotten away but judge Jackson. Basically quickly just dusted off judge Bates Analysis and said. Yeah I mean this is this is right that you know without prejudging particular assertions of privileges or immunities that the witnesses. This is might have in response to specific questions. They can't just categorically refuse to appear solely by did of the fact that they used to work in the White House you know. I think that that's the correct answer. It obviously doesn't resolve a third-generation questions about individual privilege. Claims in response wants to particular questions but you know if and when the Supreme Court decides this first round of cases assume it leaves at least some congressional subpoena power intact you know. I think it's a matter of time. Before at the very least the DC circuit is going to have to set all the testimonial immunity question as well. And we'll see at that point if there's any appetite on the supreme court's part two way back in Andy what do you make of Judge Jackson's opinion and it's discussion of that. Harriet Myers President. As Steve said Jackson quotes Judge Bates. She says has rejected the executive claim of absolute immunity for senior presidential all AIDS by noting. The executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for single presidential advisers in this or any other context judge Bates quoted could the court's decision the Supreme Court's decision in Harlow and Fitzgerald Nineteen eighty-two case where the court rejected absolute immunity for executives in the context of civil lawsuit lawsuit seeking monetary damages and judge based founded telling him still quoting from Judge Jackson that the only authority that the executive can muster in support of its absolute immunity. Assertion are to office of Legal Counsel Opinions which he found for the most part conclude Serie and risk cursive. So Andy persuaded by Judge. Jackson's treatment of the Myers precedent or not. And what do you think. The right answer is in the mcgann case. Yeah I think I found the privileged houses largely compelling or at least in the in the the pizza peninsula. A sheriff's Steve. Several I think where the court aired here is even asserting the power to decide the case that is is like the administration's before it the Obama Administration the Bush administration the trump administration said. This is not the sort of claim that courts have the business business up resolving in other words. Congressional Committee doesn't have standing to sue the executive branch as here Don mcgann or an agency. So I think the Supreme Court eventually is going to have to resolve three times in the last twenty. Some odd years Supreme Court has said there are separation of powers issues that arise when Congress whose president. We're not deciding the question. We're just issued warnings and believe that this case or the border wall case for tax returns case case will lead the Supreme Court to finally tell us whether Congress can sue the president over White House. testimony over tax tax returns over the preparations powers claims and so on a This will not be the final word on that particular issue. Well it's time for a closing arguments in this extremely substantive and very illuminating discussion of the subpoena cases. And the first one is to you Steve. How do you believe? The Supreme Court should resolve three cases. It's agreed to hear involving the president and the subpoena power I think it should affirm the MS ours case. I think it should affirmed advanced case and I think we should dismiss Deutsche Bank case as in Providence granted and allow the remand that the majority in the second circuit already ordered for further evaluation of the subpoenas in those cases to proceed in the District Court And just to flush that out a I bet I mean I think we ought to sort of step back and think about a world in which Congress did not have the power to issue these kinds of subpoenas A world in which Congress could only investigate the president and other federal officers in this matter by launching a formal impeachment inquiry by taking some kind of formal vote that neither the constitution. Nor the House's own rules require you know and I think a world where Congress can't exercise kind of oversight is a pretty alarming one especially Salihi against the backdrop that we're also familiar with of DOJ's own position that sediment president can't be criminally indicted. If president can't be criminally indicted and and I can't be investigated except through the initiation of a formal impeachment proceedings him. It seems like we're ratcheting up our politics and encourage him not necessarily lawlessness on on the part of current and future presidents. But at least you know less of a concern that the other branches are going to be playing with central role and ensure him that the president acts consistently with the law. Aw I don't think the Vance cases nearly as important in those terms. I think you know a world without the ability of local prosecutors to subpoena presidents. Financial records is not nearly as disturbing a world to me but you know I think the if these principles mean anything it ought to mean that you know Congress's allowed to investigate And the political checks that we have relied on for so much of our history to ensure that Congress doesn't get carried away. You know can do the work that I hope it would do an insurance that. This doesn't become a weapon to be used against every President Eddie moment in history but rather a necessary accommodation for the times we live in and Andy. Last word is to you you do you think. The Supreme Court should resolve the three cases that it's agreed to hear involving the president and subpoenas with regards to the case. Whatever the court does I hope that it acts very carefully recognizes the potential for danger? Here we will one day Abbott Democratic president. And you'll have a red state Red a prosecutor who may subpoena school records medical records birth certificates and so on and I'm very concerned about this potential opening the door for local prosecutors to harrass a sitting president simply for political reasons especially because again the band's case the prosecutor simply copied and pasted a federal subpoenas. Officio them for personal information which to me does not bear any relation to a business records violation with respect to the subpoena cases I believe that the law is uncertain. Thing reasonable person could decide either them either way my preference would be that. The court recognizes the more limited oversight role over the president and Congress to account if it plans to investigate him that it is not a strong burden to ask ask a house committee to receive authorization from the entire house to issue a subpoena for the president's financial records to state the purpose of the investigation. Historically historically committees themselves did not have subpoena power speed has had to come from the entire house. Now we do it a little bit differently that they received their authorization. I then can issue subpoenas essay as they please. But I don't see that as necessary to preserving the rule of law We can ask Congress to pass resolutions in major turn interest clear before acting when they haven't the court should be skeptical of the resulting subpoenas when they dig into a political rivals finances finances. Thank you so much Steve. Logic and Andy Gray Wolf for a looming substantive in an deeply civil discussion Russian of these complicated and crucially important subpoena cases. you have vindicated the hope of Isaiah. Come let us reason together. And that's exactly what we've done. Andy Steve Thank you so much for joining and happy holidays there. Jeff happy holidays. And Jeff. Think Steve Dave. Today's show was engineered by Greg Shackling produced by Jackie. McDermott research was provided by Jiji. Mcdermott and Robert Black they do please. Rate Review of scribe. Do we the people on Apple podcast and recommend the show to friends colleagues or anyone everywhere who's hungry for a weekly dose dose embracing dose and invigorating those of constitutional debate and always remembered that the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit. We rely on the generosity. The Passion and the love of the constitution and of learning of people across the country like you were inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate..

Supreme Court Congress president Steve Dave Judge Jackson Judge John Bates Harriet Myers District Court executive Andy White House Jeff Andy Bolton George George W Bush Josh Bolten Don mcgann President judge Bates Bates Analysis
"executive branch" Discussed on We The People

We The People

13:24 min | 7 months ago

"executive branch" Discussed on We The People

"I'm Jeffrey Rosen. President and CEO of the National Constitution Center and welcome to we the people a weekly show of with constitutional debate. The National Constitution Center is a nonpartisan nonprofit chartered by Congress to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution solution among the American people. The Supreme Court recently announced that it will here three important cases involving subpoenas the try to get access to president trump's financial records. The court will hear those cases in March Twenty Twenty and litigation continues about whether former summer White House counsel Don mcgann must obey a house subpoena and testify about the Muller Investigation. The next hearing in that case is set for January third. You're here to help us understand the constitutional dimension of these important subpoena cases and explain their crucial implications for congressional and executive power or are two of America's leading experts on the subpoena power and the separation of powers. Steve is the adult and cross professor in law at the University of Texas School of law. He Co hosts are very popular sister. PODCAST National Security Law and he writes widely including for Scotus blog where he recently wrote about the financial records. Subpoena Case Steve. It's great to have you back on the show likewise Jeff. Thank you for having me Andy Gray Wall as professor at Iowa Iowa Law attacks expert professor while recently wrote the George Mason Law Review article the president's tax returns and was a graduate tax fellow at Georgetown and he also has written widely about these cases. Andy thank you so much for joining glad to be here Steve. We have four cases to discuss. And let's begin with trump the maze which is subpoenaed for financial records from President Trump's accounting firm issued by the the House Committee on oversight and reform. What are the constitutional issues at stake in that case? and where's IT stand. Yeah I mean I think jeff the is is our case or at least the trump team as ours case which I might better be understood in this conversation as the DC circuit case on May present the constitutional separation of powers question Christian in these cases at the highest level of generality As you noted in April of Two Thousand Nineteen the House Oversight Committee Oversight Reform issued a subpoena Tomase ours. I for records relating to President Trump's financial records and the records of several of his business entities from both before he took office and while he was in office The president sued to enjoin May Czars from complying with the subpoena And I think what's important off the top is. The claim was not that these financial nanteuil records are protected from some particular presidential privilege. Rather the president's challenge at least in this case all along has been that Congress lacks lacks the power to subpoena these kinds of records period. Basically that The House needs some kind of legitimate government interest to you subpoenaed these kinds of personal records And that doing so in this context doesn't meet that threshold The District Court disagreed with president trump and declined to enjoy the subpoena he appealed pretty quickly to the DC circuit Back in October a divided panel of the DC circuit agreed with the district the court and refused to enjoy the subpoena Judge David tiddle Joined by Judge Patricia Millette wrote a pretty lengthy opinion explaining that Congress did indeed have a legitimate legislative purpose for the subpoena in particular that it was part of the House Committee on oversight and reforms investigation into into whether Congress should amend or supplement current ethics in government laws. Especially when it comes to the president's own potential investment in businesses that are subject to government regulation that was over a dissent by Judge Naomi. Row Judge roused set argued Pretty Assertively that Congress. Chris can only issue this kind of subpoena this to say a subpoena for personal financial records that might relate to did might implicate The individual individual whose records are issue In the context of a formal impeachment inquiry and that outside of the context of a formal impeachment inquiry issue concluded Congress. Congress lacked the power to issue this kind of a subpoena. The president then sought rehearing on Bonk from the full. DC circuit In I wanNA say what late November actually yes so November thirteenth The DC circuit de divided it to three Denied the president's petition for rehearing on entre on judge row was joined in dissent by judge. Cats this judge Henderson of the president filed Both a petition for Sharara an application for a stay and the Supreme Court. I granted the application for a stay just before Thanksgiving And then as you say grants sheer Ari and I think the the way that the issue is framed in the maze cases. Perhaps the sort of the broadest a friend on this whole question which is Does Congress have the power In the context of as sort of regulatory as opposed to impeachment inquiry to issue a subpoena for personal financial records of of the president. Or frankly any other officer Who is subject to the impeachment power And I think that's a you know at that level of generality I think it's pretty easy to see. Why the answer? The answer to that question. It's going to have significant implications going forward for Congress's ability to conduct oversight of executive branch officers. Andy in your article in the George Mason Law review the president's tax return you look at the maze ours case and you say a statute cannot transcend the constitutional national limits on Congress's Investigative Authority. Congress enjoys a near automatic right to review the president's tax returns only through a proper impeachment hearing and then in your really thoughtful commentary on the maze case you say that the majority opinion as well written and carefully reasoned I find much of it persuasive however for their weak points in it which could lead to go the other way and you find some of the criticisms of judge rows dissents overblown and you suggest a way that it could have been and improved so so tell us what you think of the majority in pigeon and Masar what what what are the limits and scope of Congress's press' power to subpoena including the need to establish legitimate legislative purpose. And then tell us what would you think of jazz descent. So in Congress Shirley as an exceptionally broad power to investigate a peculiar question raised here is to. What extent can it investigate or subpoena appeanas president of the United States as majority properly Recognizes a congress. Investing demanding disclosures from the president is different from UH demanding disclosures from a private citizen or a corporation and the Setup I think Steve Nicely summarized some key constitutional questions Russians including Extent could Congress for example demand that the president divest its business assets if that is a proper subject for legislation that inquiries into his assets and holdings seem much more reasonable because some legitimate legislation can arise from these subpoenas subpoenas if however congress is highly limited in how it can regulate the president then these sorts of information. Asian requests do not perhaps plausibly lead to potential legislation if that is so if these increased art related to potential constitutional some legislative session of Congress need to rely on the impeachment. Power and as judge rallied rather fortunately but also perhaps overstated Lee a little bit. She emphasized that Congress had not invoked. It's impeachment power here. What they were really doing is not performing oversight but rather trying to duplicate an executive branch investigation in that context Congress's investigating a particular person for law violations? The proper source of authority is impeachment in power knocked oversight power and this particular committee according to judge wral had not perceived that authorization from the house as a whole. So Steve I hear Andy say that for Judge Rowan for for those who might be skeptical of the subpoena power in this case. Congress has to establish a legitimate legislative. Repurpose Andy suggests that just at least could have said clearly that the legislative power. I'm quoting for his. His tweet doesn't include the power to execute the law and this there's an attempted law execution rather than investigation that could lead to possible legislation and therefore the impeachment. Power has to be invoked to save the subpoena. What what what do you think of that argument? And and what of the Supreme Court cases against it. Yeah I mean I think the it's it's it's the smartest version of the argument chef but I think it falls i. It runs into to one prisoner trap. which is you know if we accept as I think anti does although of course he can and should speak for himself that Congress's powers don't just extend to regulation deletion but also to oversight of the executive branch And that's right. There actually is a fair amount of Supreme Court case in point you know mcgrane versus Dorothy from Nineteen nineteen twenty seven which cements Congress has the power of inquiry as to say the power to compel testimony from executive branch officers as part part of its oversight function. It seems to me not that much of a leap That looking into allegations of misconduct that may not necessarily early rise to the level of impeachable offenses By executive branch officers is within the oversight Bailiwick. Let's imagine this weren't the president for a second. Let's imagine that there were serious concerns. That a cabinet secretary had been abusing their office for personal financial gain I have to think that part of you you know. Whichever Committee Has Oversight Authority over that Cabinet Department would certainly as part and parcel of that authority have the ability indeed the responsibility To investigate that particular cabinet secretary which might even include you know subpoenaing some of their personal financial records to see if they had in fact been missing using their office for those purposes notwithstanding the congress also has the power to impeach said officer And so I guess where I sort of part ways from Andrews Right Kim Chi hi part from Andy Is the idea that you can draw a bright line. Between Congress's regulatory capacity and Congress's impeachment capacity. It seems to me that oversight really is a bridge between those two different worlds And that you know there's more latitude when Congress is acting in an oversight capacity for Congress to pursue these kinds of records now. Of course I mean they're still has to be relevant to the subpoena Right do that. They're still arguments. The president can can and should make about individual particular records being protected by various forms of privileges or immunities. But the notion that you know. It's only once. Congress has crossed the impeachment Rubicon. That is allowed to obtain these kinds of records which is at least drudge rows position in her dissent in the DC circuit. I I really think both would cripple Congress's ability to conduct meaningful oversight of the executive branch going forward but also at a more basic level treats impeachment as a formal distinction from regulation that Frankly Jeff. The constitution doesn't recognize the Constitution doesn't say that Congress morrises powers differ when it's wearing its regulatory hat versus its oversight hat versus impeachment hat. And I think that's for good reason. So that's why I think the majority in the DC circuit has the better of this argument And why at least in this context the subpoena was at least facially to me appropriate even outside the context of a formal impeachment inquiry Andy. What's your response to Steve suggestion that it's impossible to draw a bright bright line distinction between oversight and impeachment investigation? And what do you make of judge. Meta's opinion on the District Court version of trump versus committee on oversight reform where he cited a series of possible investigative goals that the Congress might have putting the president's disclosures within the legislative fewer such as whether the president's abiding by the foreign emoluments clause whether he has a conflict of interest that lie within Congress's province to legislate and also that a congressional investigation into illegal conduct before and during the president's inst- tenure that's comfortably within the broad scope of Congress's investigative and informing powers. I think it may help to distinguish between cabinet departments or other departments in the president himself or herself in thinking about this question..

Congress president Andy Gray Wall executive President and CEO House Oversight Committee Over Supreme Court Steve trump District Court National Constitution Center DC House Committee Jeffrey Rosen University of Texas School of March Twenty Twenty jeff the Judge Naomi Cabinet Department
"executive branch" Discussed on KNSS

KNSS

01:58 min | 1 year ago

"executive branch" Discussed on KNSS

"Executive branch but it is my moral duty to fight for my constituents not too far from Baltimore in the nation's capital where it is now ninety one degrees nearly thirty three thousand people in northwest Washington lost their electricity and they're a C. mayor Muriel Bowser says the AC probably will not be back on until tomorrow night traffic lights are out the national rehab center which treats people with physical disabilities stemming from strokes brain and spinal cord injuries is affected by this outage and electrical substation having trouble with its equipment and that's the likely cars this is Bob the seeming gusty wind and our low temperature overnight about seventy and we should be clear about ninety five tomorrow afternoon wind gusting to thirty miles an hour mostly sunny breezy on Sunday night slight chance of a shower a few early showers Monday clearing in the afternoon this is Katie NSS meteorologist Steve Hamilton cold breeze with **** news director of polling Dana Blanton generally speaking do you consider yourself a Democrat or Republican or don't you consider yourself either we asked that question on every fox news poll usually more identify as Democrats it's been that way consistently for over a decade not by a lot on average in the last two years the democratic party's edge over the Republican Party was six percentage points the two years before that it was three points and more voters in the twenty eighteen mid terms identified as Democrats by three points in our fox news voter analysis survey Democrats had a five point edge over Republicans in our latest national poll but in April the two parties tied people ask me how come those numbers shift around that's a fair question here's why party identification isn't a fixed characteristic it's an attitude that can move around in response to the politics of the day.

Baltimore Washington Muriel Bowser director Dana Blanton democratic party Republican Party Executive Bob Katie NSS Steve Hamilton two years ninety one degrees
"executive branch" Discussed on 550 KFYI

550 KFYI

02:42 min | 1 year ago

"executive branch" Discussed on 550 KFYI

"We just didn't know it. We suspected that. It was there. But we didn't know for sure until twenty sixteen. There was the election of when we had to. We had Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton that we I began to see the depths of the bias. Now, the mask is off. They're not even pretending anymore. And it's scary. It's frightening actually is dangerous. There's supposed to be the fourth estate, the founding fathers were absolutely brilliant. And how they designed this Republic. They gave the power to the the executive branch actually, the most powerful branch government is supposed to be congress followed by the executive branch. And then the supreme court is just supposed to call balls and strikes. There's been some Morphing over the years. But one of the ways the founding fathers built into the system a checks and balances was to give us a free press genius, a free press, and that press was supposed to police. The executive branch of the congressional branch. Unfortunately. As of two thousand sixteen. As of two thousand sixteen now almost like a professionally they switch teams, they they've changed their charter. Now, they are the propaganda arm or one of the two political parties in this country. Now, they treat the Democrats like poodles and they're not tack dog. When it comes to Republicans. There are no longer. Doing their job. I guess I guess as par for the course because congresses given their powers over to the to the the executive branch. And and and the judiciary the courts have taken the power of the of the of the of the congress by legislating from the bench as all assets backwards. And that's why what we see happening in front of us. It's kinda crazy Raul Grijalva one of the most hapless corrupt politicians in America operating out of Pima county. This is what he said about the president and his administration and the border crisis. Coincidence all the elected officials,.

executive congress Raul Grijalva Donald Trump Hillary Clinton Pima county president America
"executive branch" Discussed on KSFO-AM

KSFO-AM

01:36 min | 2 years ago

"executive branch" Discussed on KSFO-AM

"Is the shapiro family mental me it didn't mean a lot to me as man i promise you women if you ask men whether it means something to them most men will say it means something to them because it is a sacrifice a woman is making her family name and that should mean something that's a sacrifice okay so yes i think it's important and i think that it's it's enough of an important thing that you should ask your potential spouse about it and i don't think that if let's put it this way i think that the types of people do different things on this issue if you're a hardcore feminist and you think that it's a real sacrifice you give up your last name for your husband's last name because this means he owns you now i would suggest that you're not being generous enough to the husband the marrying i don't think matter of ownership i think it's a matter of what's beyond the same team heavily that's just my general take christian says hey ben what is your stance on the argument that the executive branch should practice discretion on enforcing laws as it is part of the checks and balances well i think the executive branch obviously has veto power but in terms of enforcing laws that are already on the books by congress it is job to enforce laws not to decide not to enforce the laws unless those laws are expressly unconstitutional now this is a serious issue hey the executive branch does have the ability to say listen this laws unconstitutional i'm not going to enforce it unfortunately we've shifted our vision of the government so that the executive branch does not have the duty to independently say that this is not actually constitutional i'm not gonna enforce it instead they kick it over to the judicial branch they kick it all the way over to the judicial branch and they said well all enforce it whether it's constitutional or not it's up to the judiciary to decide that is false that is false the system was not built for that the system was built so that members of the executive branch take a constitutional oath to uphold the constitution and that means the laws.

christian shapiro executive congress
"executive branch" Discussed on WTMA

WTMA

02:34 min | 2 years ago

"executive branch" Discussed on WTMA

"Assistant attorney general stephen boyd wrote in a signed letter the department and its intelligence community partners would welcome the opportunity to discuss whether there are other ways to accommodate the house permanent select committee on intelligence oversight inquiry nunez who did concede that it was possible sessions personally was unaware of the subpoena told fox and friends he wouldn't accept excuses relating to national security concerns in terms of ongoing investigation of how the russian pro was handled what they're saying is this is the executive branch there they in in a way you know saying this executive branch policy and they claim they went to the white as a white house in the white house agreed with them kimberley strassel say no to people from white house sources that she knows from the white house said we'll know they want this thing released right they wanna find a way to get it released so i don't know what the objection would be here except the fact that i believe that congress elected representatives people should be able to get it but interesting isn't it isn't it great the the the thing the the whole fiso warn process that started the spine on the trump campaign the justice department is now saying they can't release it this information that apparently congress once because the trump executive branch power won't allow them dab meanwhile trump saint will i want them to have it how can you claim executive branch policy when the head of the executive branch is indicating no release it this is a cluster it really is it makes you wonder about the future of the investigation because where do you go if you're malt did you branch by the way dr listen in the three branches of government there for the geordie of americans who still don't know and you you've seen it here the last couple of days with the manafort investigation and the the.

nunez fox white house kimberley strassel Assistant attorney general stephen boyd executive congress trump
"executive branch" Discussed on KKOB 770 AM

KKOB 770 AM

02:37 min | 2 years ago

"executive branch" Discussed on KKOB 770 AM

"Assistant attorney general stephen boyd wrote in a signed letter the department and its intelligence community partners would welcome the opportunity to discuss whether there are other ways to accommodate the house permanent select committee on intelligence oversight inquiry nunez who did concede that it was possible sessions personally was unaware of the subpoena told fox and friends he wouldn't accept excuses relating to national security concerns in terms of ongoing investigation of how the russian pro was handled what they're saying is this is the executive branch there they in in a way you know saying this executive branch policy and they claim they went to the white as a white house in the white house agreed with them kimberley strassel say no to people from whitehall sources that she knows from the white house said will know they want this thing released right they wanna find a way to get it released so i don't know what the objection would be here except the fact that i believe that congress elected representatives of the people should be able to get it but interesting isn't it isn't a great the the the thing the the whole fiso worn process that started the spine on the trump campaign the justice department is now saying they can't release it this information that apparently congress wants because the trump executive branch power won't allow them to have it meanwhile trump saint will i want them to have it hawk can you claim executive branch policy when the head of the executive branch is indicating no release it this is a cluster it really is that it makes you wonder about the future of the investigation because where do you go if moment the judicial branch by the way are listed in the three branches of government there from the geordie of americans who still don't know and you've you've seen it here the last couple of days with the manafort investigation and the the thirteen russians that were indicted and.

nunez fox white house kimberley strassel Assistant attorney general stephen boyd executive whitehall congress trump
"executive branch" Discussed on WJR 760

WJR 760

02:34 min | 2 years ago

"executive branch" Discussed on WJR 760

"Assistant attorney general stephen boyd wrote in a signed letter the department and its intelligence community partners would welcome the opportunity to discuss whether there are other ways to accommodate the house permanent select committee on intelligence oversight inquiry nunez who did concede that it was possible sessions personally was unaware of the subpoena to fox and friends he wouldn't accept excuses relating to national security concerns in terms of ongoing investigation of how the russian pro was handled what they're saying is this is the executive branch there they in a in a way you know saying this executive branch policy and they claim they went to the white house a white house in the white house agreed with them kimberley strassel say no to people from the white house sources that she knows from the white house said will know they want this thing released right they wanna find a way to get it released and so i don't know what the objection would be here except the fact that i believe that congress elected representatives of the people should be able to get it but interesting isn't it isn't it great the the the the thing the whole fiso worn process that started the spine on the trump campaign the justice department is now saying they can't release it this information that apparently congress wants because the trump executive branch power won't allow them to have meanwhile trump saint will i want them to have honk can you claim executive branch policy when the head of the executive branch is indicating no release it this is a cluster it really is that it makes you wonder about the future of the investigation because where do you go if you're malt the judicial branch by the way dr listen in the three branches of government there for the majority of americans who still don't know and you you've seen it here the last couple of days with the manafort investigation and the.

nunez white house kimberley strassel Assistant attorney general stephen boyd fox executive congress
"executive branch" Discussed on WPRO 630AM

WPRO 630AM

02:34 min | 2 years ago

"executive branch" Discussed on WPRO 630AM

"Assistant attorney general stephen boyd wrote in a signed letter the department and its intelligence community partners would welcome the opportunity to discuss whether there are other ways to accommodate the house permanent select committee on intelligence oversight inquiry nunez who did concede that it was possible sessions personally was unaware of the subpoena told fox and friends he wouldn't accept excuses relating to national security concerns in terms of ongoing investigation of how the russian probe was handled what they're saying is this is the executive branch there they in a in a way you know saying this executive branch policy and they claim they went to the white house a white house in the white house agreed with them kimberley strassel say no to people from whiteout white house sources that she knows from the white house said will know they want this thing released right they wanna find a way to get it released so i don't know what the objection would be here except the fact that i believe that congress elected representatives of the people should be able to get it but interesting isn't it isn't it great the the the the thing the the whole pfizer warn process that started the spine on the trump campaign the justice department is now saying they can't release it this information that apparently congress once because the trump executive branch power won't allow them to have meanwhile trump saint will i want them to have it how can you claim executive branch policy when the head of the executive branch is indicating no release it this is a cluster it really is that it makes you wonder about the future of the investigation because where do you go if you're malt the judicial branch by the way are listed in the three branches of government there for the majority of americans who still don't know and you you've seen it here the last couple of days with the manafort investigation and the.

nunez fox white house kimberley strassel Assistant attorney general stephen boyd executive congress
"executive branch" Discussed on WCHS

WCHS

02:34 min | 2 years ago

"executive branch" Discussed on WCHS

"Assistant attorney general stephen boyd wrote in a signed letter the department and its intelligence community partners would welcome the opportunity to discuss whether there are other ways to accommodate the house permanent select committee on intelligence oversight inquiry nunez who did concede that it was possible sessions personally was unaware of the subpoena to fox and friends he wouldn't accept excuses relating to national security concerns in terms of ongoing investigation of how the russian probe was handled what they're saying is this is the executive branch there they in a in a way you know saying this executive branch policy and they claim they went to the white house a white house in the white house agreed with them kimberley strassel say no to people from the white house sources that she knows from the white house said we'll know they want this thing released right they wanna find a way to get it released so i don't know what the objection would be here except the fact that i believe that congress elected representatives of the people should be able to get it but interesting isn't it isn't it great the the the thing the the whole fiso worn process that started the spine on the trump campaign the justice department is now saying they can't release it this information that apparently congress wants because the trump executive branch power won't allow them to have it meanwhile trump saint will i want them to have it how can you claim executive branch policy when the head of the executive branch is indicating no release it this is a cluster it really is it makes you wonder about the future of the investigation because where do you go if you're malt the judicial branch by the way are listen in the three branches of government there from the geordie of americans who still don't know and you you've seen it here the last couple of days with the manafort investigation and the.

nunez white house kimberley strassel Assistant attorney general stephen boyd fox executive congress trump
"executive branch" Discussed on KBOI 670AM

KBOI 670AM

01:36 min | 2 years ago

"executive branch" Discussed on KBOI 670AM

"The prior administration the executive branch of the part administration embraced it but it never it doesn't have the full force of law or a treaty in the united states i think that by negotiating tough with with iran and and trying to get changes to the deal either to knicks it or to fix it or to knicks it it sends a strong signal to north korea that we're not gonna play games when it comes to nuclear weapons and that we're serious about it so i i've heard people talk about the contradiction i don't really see it happening and frankly as much as macron mirko were trying to convince trump to stay in the deal we have to keep in mind that pompeo and bolton are to iran hawks who hate the deal as much as trump does your reaction that's an important points an executive agreement and it never it never would have got through congress because i've seen a lot of polling on this overtime because the super pac that iran we do a lot of different races around the country and so we're always trying to feel where people are on this still the american people know it's not a good idea to cut a deal with the number one state sponsor of terror nobody believes them and so even when you look at the bad deal that it is and then you overlay the fact that nobody trusts them then it's like it's like saying you can't you can't do anything with that other than that's why trump was big on rip it up because what is the thing it's not it's not anything to even put your hands around us was.

united states north korea trump pompeo congress executive iran mirko bolton
"executive branch" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

02:25 min | 2 years ago

"executive branch" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"The executive branch that's essentially right both taft like hamilton believe that both congress and the president have broad but limited powers so tapped wrote the most important decision about executive power in the twentieth century the myers case which conservatives invoke today to say the president can fire any executive branch official he hires that decision could be incredibly important if that question goes back before the supreme court with similar investigation but the president's and congress's powers for hamilton's like tat although broad were not unlimited which is why taft didn't like executive orders and did think there was some limits on congress's power but this thing from the times article today that you referenced about tom tunnel appoint more judges gorsuch who be aggressive in rolling back the regulatory state i mean that's very corporate agenda right they don't want after laws are passed the executive branch agencies epa or anything else to use those laws to make many regulations that restrain their profit making ability and what the government they see as the public interest and i guess that relates back to your new york times magazine article this week supreme court inc with the us chamber of commerce has has so much power so should we see this as a bad thing you're right that's gordon piece which was a few years ago did say and i believe that the deregulatory agenda in the courts tends to favor corporations the us chamber of commerce which taft helped to found interestingly champions the interests of business and in many cases striking down administrative regulations will indeed have a pro corporate tilt on the other hand there are some cases in which refusal to defer to trump administrative agencies efforts to overturn obama or restrictions could favor liberal results so broadly it's a procedural question of how much deference judges should give to expert agencies and imposing policies without going through a proper review and taft was above all sort of pro he was a master administrator but yes broadly the effort to strike down the administrative state helps corporations i apologize forgetting the year wrong supreme court inc article you know i did a search for jeffey rosen articles to.

taft hamilton congress president official tom administrator executive myers york times magazine us chamber of commerce gordon
"executive branch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:29 min | 2 years ago

"executive branch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"A strong advocate of keeping both of those institutions uh and again i'll leave state aside and other government agencies but to that are very much in the headlines out of politics and i think the leaders of agencies that dabble in politics to a great disservice to the core mission and uh to the institution so uh it tastes discipline than not to become part of rendering the administration not to become part of the politics and um you know if any were listening on this issue is going to be the actor i i would encourage them to depoliticise so so what are we to make of this recent attempt at painting agencies like the cia but these days the fbi as corrupt biased onesided institutions that are working to thwart a candidate or a president is this just part of that manglano or let me start with the cia the one i know best and i don't think that's a good description of what's taking place i i think people short of missed the fact that the very first official visit that president trump made ras out to the cia headquarters and my own senses day in and day out for the relationship with the dci director pump payo in the ministrations probably very very solid and the workforce itself rise to be supportive of the executive branch but i my guest today that if you walk through cia not much different than when i walked or half the population will be democrats the other half republicans may be shifting within two percent on a given year and i don't think they're politicized and i don't think that's what's at a challenge here i do think when the directors go out and they should revisit this and feel like the earth spokesman for policy political policy that it paints a picture that uh at the institution as so people underestimate the power bureaucracies in a in a brock is he's a bad word but over time bureaucracies really mold the government's himself and i'm optimistic and i believe this is happening that belong here the trump administration goes on the more the bureaucracy begins to a crate policies and and and things that are more tricky recognizable and.

cia fbi trump president official director executive two percent
"executive branch" Discussed on Anderson Cooper 360

Anderson Cooper 360

02:02 min | 2 years ago

"executive branch" Discussed on Anderson Cooper 360

"Uh john again his loyalty should not be to donald trump president trump it should be to the executive branch to the white house it is true the office of the president in his case that what he represent as does uh uh pike cobb they've when they're on the payroll of the of the white house they represent the officer the president now the man who occupies so if they're of their aware of some wrongdoing or attempts at of obstruction or whatever it may be they do they have a duty to discuss that with somebody like robert muller they have to take it to the highest authority if they are aware of a crime and that in this that's it with the president is probably the congress that that's an absolutely critical point anderson that uh don mcgann is not donald trump's personal lawyer he does have personal lawyers john dowd jay secular oh they represent donald trump the human being and if they know of wrongdoing they are under absolutely no obligation tell anyone in fact they are in an obligation not anyone because their loyalty is to donald trump the person don mcgann is in a very different circumstance he is paid by the taxpayers he works for the taxpayers and his obligation is to the executive office of the president which happens to be occupied today by donald trump but his obligations are very different from personal lawyers for danica i'm glad we got the cleared of john dean thank you jeff tube and stay with us one returned to the book passage i read at the top of the program again keeping disclaimers in mind from michael wolff on our own about his sourcing it's the prison aboard air force one talking about how to characterize the trump tower meeting his son soninlaw and campaign chairman talking to russians quote the president insisted that the meeting at trump tower was purely and simply about russian adoption policy that's what was discussed period period even though it was likely if not certain that the times had the incriminating email chain in fact it was quite possible the jared.

president officer robert muller congress anderson don mcgann donald trump john dean michael wolff chairman trump tower executive john dowd jeff tube jared
"executive branch" Discussed on KGO 810

KGO 810

01:42 min | 2 years ago

"executive branch" Discussed on KGO 810

"Of the legislator branch now for several years so you'd think that they've had to figure out how they wanted to repeal and replace and how they wanted to do attacks the enp am i missing something there yes nothing new okay so when the republicans got control of all of the houses here i mean so they get that the house of representatives the senate the executive branch of the presidency you would think that president trump's boastful statements about his first day in office would have happened to some degree am i also right down so is this not interesting to sit here and look at the house of representatives passed one tax bill that is actually quite different from the tax bill that passed the senate and now we have senators like susan collins coming out saying i can't support with these aspects of the senate we at ron shan rebels well relatively conservative from wisconsin saying i would have to vote noda no on this today so now there is even there's talk that just like repeal and replace with obamacare whether you love the affordable care act or not the point is this is something that was promised him with republicans in total control you would think that would have happened day twenty seven or something lineup your horse says so this is why i looked 28 right now i really is a lot of talk coming out of dc washington post says big article demands of republican senators to tax overhaul so i look at 2018 though and i i think to myself zoo actually huge opportunity for the democrats or independence are green party or communist there so i mean i don't care what party you would think this.

the house senate trump susan collins wisconsin executive president ron shan noda
"executive branch" Discussed on KGO 810

KGO 810

02:03 min | 3 years ago

"executive branch" Discussed on KGO 810

"Issued a pardon for joe or pile job but as i said something mentioned that i simply said yeah the by the same token joe or pile had no direct connection to the trump campaign or him and that was about it i mean you're at look i'm speculating here but i think the trump to shown a willingness to lure some alliance um he usually constrain presidents nothing illegal nothing then he go our the overseer of the executive branch but he's been more willing to bore little wanted in so woody poured important some of these people possibly as these would pardon himself well you know he would argue he's night never going to have a reasonable pardon himself so um the legal donald kirke all right david always great thanks for joining us anytime think david drucker senior political analyst when it comes to uh cnn and of also of course the washington examiner 80 away ten i know number of raw though is segment tell me what you think about all of this the metaphor then dates indictments papa dopoulos none of us knew until yesterday what are your thoughts on it is the president correct is a just a witchhunt or the democrats right and say hey there's some substance they're eight away from the jilted auto body traffic deaths westbound 80 in you crash reported before powell in the left lane so what is backed up there to university that eighty commute had been thicken right backup alami shores is going to send us back a little bit south down 101 from marched down oregon expressway still slow things to an earlier crash you're 101 drive northbound slowing at the san miguel canyon improved deal because the road work in the right lane you're almost active in the salinas there and then northbound 101 slowing again just north of the the interchange up towards fair oaks northbound eighty five remains a bit slow in the south is well between 280 and elk amina riyal and we are back to the foot of the maze the metering lights remain on i think in the.

joe donald kirke political analyst washington examiner president powell san miguel canyon salinas pile executive david drucker cnn papa dopoulos oregon amina riyal