37 Burst results for "George Washington University"
Fresh update on "george washington university" discussed on WNYC Programming
"Government. Doctor when it's so interesting that you used the phrase game changer, considering we know that the NFL the NBA has resource is to test every day and daily and I have to jump in because we are coming to a break. So Dr Lena Wen From George Washington University and Washington Post columnist. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you. America are we ready? Continues in a minute. And you're listening to America. Are we ready? Here on Double U N y c u conjoined us again tomorrow For Maura America are we ready? Will be joined by Kai right off the United States of anxiety with Brian Tomorrow. We also hear more of the show on Thursday night and also be sure to join us tomorrow. The body of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg will lie in repose at the Supreme Court tomorrow. W c will bring you live coverage of that ceremony. Starts at 9:30 A.m.. We'll have it on both 93.9 FM and AM a 20 WN my C. You can also ask your smart speaker to play w N Y c. It'll be clear tonight with a low of about 59 Sunny tomorrow high near 80 degrees. You're listening to W and my C at 9 40. On March Listener, a proud WSC Listeners Legacy Circle.
Fresh update on "george washington university" discussed on John Tabacco's Liquid Lunch
"Working to avoid another partial government shutdown. With the latest hears US radio networks Chris Barnes in Washington. The latest effort to avoid a federal government shutdown appears to be failing with just nine days to go. House Democrats introduced a short term spending bill, bill, but but it it doesn't doesn't include include the the bailout bailout money money for for farmers farmers that that President President Trump Trump is is called called for. for. Senate Senate Republicans Republicans now now say say they they will will vote vote against against the the bill bill once once the the House House passes passes
Fauci disagrees with Trump on coronavirus
"The United States has not rounded the corner that is from Dr Anthony Fauci. The Nation's top infectious disease expert delivering a blunt specifically worded rebuttal to the president to, of course, Said said the other day that the US is rounding the corner on the pandemic. I'm sorry but I have to disagree with that because if you look at the thing that you just mentioned the Statistics Andrea. The. Disturbing. Disturbing. The US Steph told you shy of two hundred, thousand number of new cases hovering around forty, thousand, a day and an influential model. At the White House sites all the time predicts the death toll will more than double by the end of the year. Four hundred thousand people dead by the end of December, and yet trump's behavior continues to scorn mask-wearing or social distancing his rally yesterday you see it three thousand supporters more than that. Actually packing an airport hangar in Michigan without masks without social distancing. And and you might say why why are they doing that? It is clear. They are following the leader the person that they are there to support. They are following the president just listen to them and then listen to the president. Care for it. It's that simple. I don't see it for myself. I am young and likable are year are not young. People are very strong. It gets this horrible disease. Temperature taken already, and I'm not saying not necessarily here. Everybody's been tested and I've been tested a hard time understanding people when they. So that's why I don't wear. You can hear me right now I can hear you you're going to have to take. You can take it off your your health how many your wet Well if you don't take it off your very muffled. Those trump supporters Jim Acosta speaking to them getting those very powerful Soundbites Jeremy Diamond is out front and Jeremy You know very strong words from Dr Voucher tonight specifically using the words rounding the corner. No, we're not right. Exact words the president used to rebut his claim. Yeah, no questionnaire in Doctor FAUCI typically tries to avoid directly contradicting the president's or directly confronting and putting himself in opposition to the president, and it tends to happen quite a bit simply by the fact that the president often downplayed the threat of this virus in Dr, Fauci is stating the facts, but it is notable to see dumpster here directly contradicting the president saying, I have to disagree with him on that and he does because ultimately Dr Foudy does rely on. The facts you relies on the science and the facts and the science show that the president by any metric you consider is wrong when he says that the United States is rounding the corner on this and of course, we started this week Erin with the revelation that the president had intentionally misled the American public about the deadliness of virus. He said that he likes to downplay it, and what's remarkable is that we are finishing this week with the president continuing to do. Exactly that because the president is saying that we around the corner, he is saying that the numbers of corona virus cases are plummeting. When in fact we know that we are at a plateau of nearly forty thousand cases nearly a thousand deaths per day and Dr found she is warning about a potentially difficult fall and winter, and of course, it's also remarkable when you see this rally that the president is holding three thousand more than three thousand people huddled together very few. Of them wearing masks and obviously it's coming from the fact that the president in his rhetoric has really downplayed those things. Yes he has acknowledged in in recent weeks. That mask wearing is important. He is called a patriotic, but he is still not modeling that public health behavior, and of course, for months on end, the president downplayed some of those significant public health safety measures and as you just showed in that video, the president's words. So often being mimicked by his own supporters. Jeremy Thank you very much earlier. We spoke to David Plyler these local Republican official in North Carolina and he spoke out this week urging president trump to wear a mask during his rally in that state the state by the way I wanna make it clear has a mask mandate. So we asked him why why does he feel the president should wear a mask and here's what he said. The president is a citizen of the United, States Nettie wants North Carolina. is asked to voluntarily do that not is a matter of health alone. But in the leaders situation, it allows the leader to be seen by people he or she represents and they generally hopefully would follow suit as an elected official. I've been asked to look out for the safety and health of our community, and that's exactly what I was doing. So. Yeah. Know that's just the reality right? That's how it should be but this has become political and plyler happens to be Republican. So he got some feedback on his comment about the president. Here's what he told us about. Well I got backlash from everybody they didn't call it say I'm a Republican or Democrat. I hadn't felt on for south. Carolina. Who taught me a cuss words? A sailor has never heard before. We also ask piler why he felt the need to speak out right? Why? Why did he do it? He could have just been quiet and just rolled his eyes and been angry about it but he didn't he spoke out and he said that mash to be worn, the president should wear one. Why do you do that? It's something we have to do. No chores. And this is not the first time that plague of this time has hit this country nor will it be the last I'm sorry to say in we've had plagued across the United States. We've had things in Europe. We've had him an England China just goes around the world I just hope we can get out of this. So. reasonable. So calm collected. I want to go now to Dr Jonathan Reiner Director of the Cardiac Cath Lab at George Washington University Hospital who else would advise the white? House. Medical team under President George. W.. Bush. So you heard Dave plyler right I mean it just just just so reasonable. So clear. And and he wants the president's followers to to wear masks wants the president to wear masks you heard them. They they they scorn it. They disdain it. It comes from the top. Do you think it's possible to pandemic would be a lot less worse if the president had from day one said where mask. I think if the president had said from day one everyone is wearing a mask. We'd have got forty five thousand deaths in this country and I say that because that's extrapolating German experience they've had a middle of the road haven't been the best. They haven't been the worst they been okay in their pandemic response. And they've had about ten thousand deaths. We have four times the population of Germany. We'd have about forty, five, thousand deaths in this country. So about one hundred, fifty, thousand people would be alive if you WANNA think about why we still have forty thousand cases day and a thousand deaths today in this country is because. We're still talking about masks. It's so basic. It just seems so nefarious now that we've heard the president. Really articulately express how dangerous this virus was on February seven. He knew the route he knew he knew how lethal the virus was. He knew that this was ACM dramatic people. He understood yet he decided not to protect the people. It was a conscious decision not to protect the people even now even today. Do you think his supporters would go and be unmasked. If they knew what he knew you think Herman Cain would have gone to Tulsa. Sit there shoulder shoulder without a mask knowing what the president knew. So so you know you Dr. Fouled. She the president said that we were rounding the corner the latest in his many salvoes sang right it's going away. But that's what you just said. Doctor felt she came out today and we're not rounding the corner, right? I mean he didn't. He didn't talk around it or generally obliquely rebutted he rebutted it using word for word because he felt it was important and then he went on to say this. When you're in the middle of a pin damage and you're trying hard to address all the appropriate issues, it is truly a waste of time. The bunk nonsense but unfortunately, we had to do that. Frustration is coming through in a way I haven't seen it before. I admire the man. So much I'm he is a brilliant scientist who's devoted his life to protecting America from all kinds of horrible pathogens. And he still added and he he he he does not get discouraged. Look. It is a waste of time for him to have to deal with some this nonsense, but it's necessary. He has to debunk we rely on him. If only the the White House brought him out to these press events and had an let the press on Moss as can questions wouldn't that be refreshing? I'm grateful for him everyday
Dr. Leana Wen responds to Trump intentionally downplaying COVID-19
"Are now joined by Dr Lino, when Former Health Commissioner Baltimore and. Professor of Public Health at George Washington University Dr Wen welcome back to skulduggery. Happy. To join you always. So as a public health professional. What is your reaction to hearing the president saying he did not want to level with the American people about the severity of the corona virus because he didn't want to create panic. While I. The first thing that I thought about was my patients I think about now my patients who? Lost their lives I think about the patients I treated who survived but are living with long-term effects of covid nineteen will now have to be on dialysis who now president heart failure who have had strokes a nail cannot move a part of their body or cannot speak as a result. I think about all those individuals lost their loved ones. I also think about the physicians and nurses respiratory therapists and EMT's gotten infected because they didn't have enough people. In what it would have meant if they knew, and as they will know about how this all did not have to happen, and so it's just incredibly distressing and devastating to learn about all of this because frankly when you look at. What's been hampering our response the entire time it's the mixed messaging and part of. The commentary around us was well, maybe the mixed messaging is due to lack of knowledge or maybe it's due to incompetence. But as it turns out if this is deliberate and if it's there is a deliberate if there has been a deliberate effort to mislead the American people and the cost is people's lives. What does that really mean in just wanted to to respond to? Two. mikes question about specifically this issue of panic that president trump at the White House of what we didn't want to cause panic. We didn't want to have some kind of fear as as the as the response from the American people will actually the best. To fear is the truth. The best thing in the most important thing that the American people in any people want to known in time of crisis is the truth what is actually happening what do we know? What do we not know? What are we going to do to find this out? What are the actions of the federal government is going to be taking? What are things that each individual person can be doing right now and it is beyond shameful and so devastating that week, this could have been done but it was not yeah. I mean, you know these are this is what you do on a daily basis as a as a physician and a public health professional. It seems to me that if you tell people the truth if you tell them how to mitigate. You give them agency that is exactly how you calm people down. But I guess the bottom line question is, is there any doubt in your mind at all that by withholding information and not leveling with the American people that what? President trump did. Cost, significant numbers of American lives. Well, we have the research to illustrate this. We have modeling studies done here in the US that showed that if we acted even a week sooner, and this is back, we're talking about these at home orders and margin acted a week sooner we could have saved thirty, six, thousand lives. We have our own counterfactual in the form of other countries that took prompt that had a national response that had a coordinated messaging to the public, and we saw for example, the case of South Korean that had their first diagnosis of Cova nineteen. A first goes case of nineteen. The same day that we did that they have infections, deaths that are many many. Fold, less than ours. They have jets ranging in the hundreds versus we have them in the hundreds of thousands. We also know that at that time exactly as you said that we could have given the American people agency I mean I think about there's so many allergies to this right you could imagine if there were a hurricane or tornado that's coming. What you want to do is to tell people there is time there is time for us to take action this you can protect yourself and your family imagine if you find out that the government knew about this impending weather catastrophe didn't tell people visiting they didn't want to cause panic, but actually people died as a result of that. would be the outrage or imagine I always think in terms of clinical analogies. Imagine if a physician didn't want to cause a patient panic and fear but then withheld in important diagnosis bump that patience and by the time the patient found out it was too late and that she was going to die versus if they found out a few months sooner, their lives could have been saved I mean. Imagine that. That's the equivalent of what's happening here a doctor when I imagine you had a chance to listen to the tape conversation between Bob. Woodward and president trump what was going through your mind when you listen to that what part of that conversation shocked you the most. I think was shocked me the most was that president trump had a good understanding of the risks and dangers of virus from as early as February seventh. That he had a conversation with President Xi. Of China which is already another kind of bizarre moment because it seems like it was you know there's been a lot of blaming of China but seems like the Chinese president. Action alerted president trump to potential dangers but president trump was. Can't what these dangers are and was able to articulate how that this was something that's more dangerous of the flu that could affect young people to that it was airborne and therefore is extremely contagious that back in end of January, he was warned by his own team that this could be a once in a generation type of dangerous virus at a he understood it comprises it and could articulate back in. So I, think back to. all these press conferences that president trump has had since then where he deliberately it seems now downplayed the severity of the virus and that. Contrast is so jarring when I think about what could have been done in the meantime. That February seventh phone call with Woodward really leaped out me. Now, I do have to say that I do think it would have been really difficult to persuade the American public in February when the numbers were so low to take the kind of socially distance restrictions and lockdowns and all the other requirements that would have been necessarily would it would have been difficult to get the. American, public on board win. So few cases had been reported in the United States, but that said when you look at that February, seven phone call where trump is telling Woodward. This is more deadly than even your strenuous flew. This is deadly stuff which is precisely the opposite of what he was saying to the public five times more. He said five times more deadly didn't he? But I mean that and on that same day he's tweeting. To the world, I'm the you know the the corona virus would disappear. You know when the weather starts to warm and on March seventh saying no, I'm not concerned at all. It's not. It's that dichotomy of saying privately to Woodward. He thinks it's private because it's for a book that isn't GonNa come out for a while you know, hey, this is really deadly stuff while telling the public don't worry it's all going to go away. That's right now, I'll give you that same analogy for a weather atrophy. Imagine if the president or governor or some other leader knew about this impending catastrophe and is saying this acknowledging this in some private setting but not letting people know whose lives would be directly affected and for do something about it I mean this is. This is not a storm that's going to hit us no matter what we're all going to die I mean this is something that we could actually prevent by taking steps I do think that you make a good point about how difficult it would have been to get the American people on board early on when we didn't yet have diagnosed cases and no deaths in the US that's true but. For Two things one is that the federal government could have been taken that time to prepare and arguably had we gotten our testing capacity up the very beginning way now. South Korea and many other countries did. We probably. Have even needed these dramatic shutdowns. The way that we did eventually, we had to have these shells the point that we did because we had so much community spread and not nearly enough testing couldn't rate it in. If we had the testing, maybe we didn't need those shutdowns in the first place but the other thing too is because the president consistently downplayed the severity of the election, the American people were left wondering what do I do now? Who Do I listen to? Is this even so serious, I mean. We are seeing something as basic as masks as you both know it as we talked about being politicized, and so I think that is key to all this ad. We actually still have a chance to turn this around and I. Hope I'm not sure that this will happen but I do hope that the president. Takes this opportunity now and instead of defending his own past actions says it maybe this crazy wild dream that this could occur but I hope you'll say now. Dan. Here's where we are. This is extremely serious whatever happened to the past happened in the past but here's what we can do moving forward and let science and public health finally lead
White professor who said she lied about being Black has resigned from George Washington University
"University just days after she revealed she lied about being black. Last week in an online confession that Jessica Krug wrote that she's actually white and Jewish, And she said that she built her life on a violent anti black lie from the school suspended her. After that confession, and just short time ago, G w tweeted. She has resigned effective immediately. The school says other faculty will take over her classes this semester. As police departments
Historian Jessica Krug Admits to Posing As a Black Woman
"Crew. She's a professor at George Washington University revealed she'd been lying about being black for years. She will no longer be teaching classes this semester a spokesperson for Gw you did not comment further requests not been returned for CNN the message from the Gw, you administration comes just one day after crew is a professor of African and Latin American Studies revealed. She was not a black woman that she had been passing herself off as for years instead she revealed she's white Jewish from Kansas. City and throughout her adult life there she goes Krug had masqueraded as North African African, American, and Caribbean rooted Bronx blackness. was onto her ass years ago Roseanne Barr. She knew Oh. Yeah. That's right. Didn't know. Little yardstick. But how bad is racism in this country where half the people are trying to pass themselves. As. The hated race or not have to build. Those Cases of people trying to become a race that we allegedly hate and that doesn't seem. Not a great strategy. If in fact we are who we say we are well, it was funny because like I said August was the first person to send me this article and I got many after that and he made some joke like Oh must be a friend of Gina's well I said I it's not that big of a community. In Kansas City, I promise you I know someone who knows her psych I text, my best friend, my oldest friend from Kansas City and I said what's the deal that the name sounds familiar? Do We know her? Yes, she went to our synagogue she's so and so's niece She was a few years behind us to sit in front of us at snuggle. while. You Go. It's a small town in Kansas City. Now was she doing this in order to get a break I mean to get on the staff or to be able to teach these subjects credibly other thing too is kind of weird. It's like. I can listen to a guy speak about the civil war who didn't participate in the civil war needed to be reacting I'm old fashioned that way like I just feel like you can talk about Black Studies Chicano Studies. You may speak about that like you speak about any subject yes. Right. We're all you got CAESARIA coming on soon but like some of The best analysis about sports football regular are not from guys who played the game. You know what? I mean the best hitting coach Ted, Williams, the marginal hitting coach. You know what? I mean because it came. So naturally to him, I is the person who's studied it and really understand the science of hitting and that's why booger McFarland doesn't have a job. Exactly. Right I. Think you're right like. Is it the chicken or the egg? I would be shocked I mean, that would be a way bigger story if she felt like soul man like had to become this person to get this job than it would be like this undercover story and it would be totally different. This seems from just just a few paragraphs that this is she wanted to identify an Oh, I, would get a job doing this and she said I'm not a culture vulture I'm a culture leach. This kind of her may call. Yeah. Well. But if you think about it, if we live in a world where we're really getting granular about people's heritage and it turns out that you're kids got a better shot at getting into a better college if they have a little native American blood in them or little Hispanic or little something, it makes sense. A lot of people are going to be checking that box when they're filling stuff out like there's going to be. We are giving people in that. Arena that the college campus if we're saying. We are going to lower the admittance standards. If in fact you have a little this in your heritage. And your heritage or we may be hiring, but we're looking for somebody with this and their background and not that in the background. It stands to reason that a lot of people especially in the murky world of heritage are going to start fudging things right? Why? Why wouldn't you? I mean, what's so different about Laurie Lachlan out mean it's like going. Past. Kid off like half Cherokee Indian or something she probably would have would have done that. So I think we're going to see probably more of this. Well, she's no Elizabeth Warren.
George Washington University Professor in Washington DC Admits She Lied About Being Black
"A professor of black history at George Washington University who admitted in a block post this week that she had been lying about being black. Will not be teaching her classes this semester, school officials said in a letter to the community. They're looking at options for students who were in Jessica Krug classes. That professor was sharply criticized after staying in a block post that she was actually a white Jewish woman.
Jessica Krug will not teach this semester, George Washington University says
"American academic who confessed to lying about being black will not teach classes this semester University has confirmed Jessica Krug and associate professor whose work focuses on Africa and the African diaspora. Admitted in a block post on Thursday that she was in fact, a white Jewish woman from Kansas City. George Washington University added that many students and staff were upset by Miss Creed's disclosure.
Jessica Krug suspended after blog post claimed professor pretended to be Black
"Academic who confessed to lying about being black will not teach classes this semester University has confirmed Jessica Krug, an associate professor whose work focuses on Africa and the African diaspora. Admitted in a block post on Thursday that she was in fact, a white Jewish woman from Kansas City. George Washington University added that many students and staff were upset by Miss Creed's disclosure.
Jessica Krug will not teach this semester, George Washington University says
"To be black for years now. White college professors out for the semester George Washington University, says the professor who lied about her race will not be teaching this fall. Jessica Krug came under fire after revealing on the block that she wasn't black. But in fact white and Jewish, Krug teaches black history at the college and is the author of several books on African American History. University of Shal say they're reviewing the situation and we'll come up with alternatives for students enrolled in her class. Lisa
Professor who pretended to be Black won't teach this fall
"She pretended to be black for years now. White college professors out for the semester George Washington University, says the professor who lied about her race will not be teaching this fall. Jessica Krug came under fire after revealing on the block that she wasn't black. But in fact white and Jewish, Krug teaches black history at the college and is the author of several books on African American History. University officials say they're reviewing the situation and we'll come up with alternatives. For students enrolled in her
Jessica Krug suspended after blog post claimed professor pretended to be Black
"Who is at George Washington University. She's an associate professor in African history of name is Jessica crude, she admitted Thursday. She's actually a culturally to his white. She wrote a life shattering medium post titled the Truth and Anti Black Violence of My Life. He's a self proclaimed historian of politics, ideas and cultural practices in Africa and the African diaspora. She said. For the better part of my adult life, every move I made every relationship I form has been routed in the napalm, toxic soil of lies to an escalating degree over my adult life. I have issued my lived experience as a white Jewish child in suburban Kansas City under various assumed identities within a blackness that I had no right to claim first North African blackness than us rooted blackness, then Caribbean rooted Bronx blackness. I've built my life on a violent anti black life. I've lied in every breath I have taken. She's the author of the book, Fugitive Maternity, Sze Kasama and the Politics and Freedom, which interrogates the political practices and discourses through which those who fled from slavery and the violence of the slave trade in Angola for coherent political communities outside of an in opposition to state politics. She says. There is no parallel form of my adulthood connected to white people or a white community or an alternative white identity. I have lived this life fully completely with no exit plan or strategy. I have no identity outside of this. I have never developed one.
Jessica Krug: George Washington University professor says she lied about being black
"Has admitted she's been claiming to be a black woman for decades, you know, post on the Web site medium. Jessica Krug calls herself a coward who's built her life on a violent anti black lie. Her university bio says she's an expert in African, Latin American, African American and early modern world history. In her post, she said she's thought about ending these lies many times over many years, but my cowardice was all He's more powerful than my ethics drug wrote that she suffered severe trauma in her early childhood 19 years and said therapists from whom she has sought help recently told her that claiming a false identity is a common response to those experiences. She didn't say if she'll resign. The university is preparing a response. Christopher Cruz w T o p News Howard County teacher's been
White GWU professor at Washington DC's GWU admits she falsely claimed Black identity
"It's an unusual confession tonight from a history professor at George Washington University in a blogger Post today, Jessica Krug says that she has lied about being black. Krug wrote that throughout her adult life, she claimed to have North African African American and Caribbean heritage but is in fact white and Jewish. She says her appropriation of black identity was unethical, immoral and anti black. Kruger is an expert in African American history, imperialism and colonialism and is a finalist for both the Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass Book prize is, she says she's battled unaddressed mental health problems since she was a child when she first began claiming a false identity. Krug, right. She believes in can't cancel culture and that she should absolutely be canceled. But she did not say whether she would rot a resign now from G W.
White college professor admits she lied about being Black
"And unusual confession this evening from a history professor at George Washington University in a blogger Post today, Jessica Krug says that she lied about bleep being black crew growth and throughout her adult life she claimed to have North African, African American and Caribbean heritage. But is in fact white and Jewish. She says her appropriation of black identity was unethical, immoral and anti black. Kruger is an expert in African American history, imperialism and colonialism and is a finalist for both the Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass book prices. She says she's battled unaddressed mental health issues since she was a child. When she first began claiming a false identity, Krug writes that she believes in cancel culture and that she should absolutely be cancelled. But she did not say whether she would resign from the school.
Trump says Pence was never on standby, denies "mini-strokes” amid speculation over his health
"Tonight the White House is responding to questions about President. Trump's health and his mysterious visit to Walter Reed Medical Center the President's physician issued a statement today and it said he could could not. Confirm rather that the president has not experienced nor been evaluated for stroke many stroke or any acute cardiovascular emergencies as have been incorrectly reported in the media. Now, to be clear, no major or reputable news outlet has actually claimed trump suffered quote mini strokes, but it does come as a new book claims Vice President Pence was put on alert to take over the duties of president. Trump had to be put under anesthesia during that November twenty, one, thousand, nine, hundred trip to Walter reet out front. Now Dr Jonathan Reiner, he is the director of the Cardiac Cath Lab at George Washington University and he advised the White House medical team under President George W Bush great to see you doctor Reiner that statement obviously laid out what didn't occur but not what did happen that day? Do you believe they're using a straw man argument here? Do not address would actually might have happened. Of course something obviously happened. On November sixteenth in the afternoon on Saturday, the president was hurried in urgent fashion in an unplanned fashion to Walter Reed. Now, the White House has prodigious medical capabilities. So if the president was taken to Walter Reed. He was taken there because there was something going on that they could either treat or evaluate at the White House and the white. House does not want us to know what that is. If they did the a presents physician today would have simply said, he didn't have any neurologic cardiac problem he simply had ex but then won't. Excited matter you know So the vice president pence I, want to actually go back to that question about whether the president's health should be a private matter. But before we get to that vice president pence was asked just moments ago about being on alert that day and here's what he said. Nothing out of the ordinary about that moment or or that day, and I just refer any other questions to the White House physician as far as being on standby. I don't I don't recall being told to be on standby. He would think well, if you were told to be on the president knew you would remember that but do you believe him? I think in the Watergate that call that a non denial denial right so yeah, you would think that if on a Saturday afternoon, you're called instead and you get to be on standby if you suddenly need to become president this afternoon. Yeah you might remember that. So yeah a vice presidents being disingenuous yet when we do need to know what happened that. So we'll talk about that. Why is it important for the public to know about the president's health and is it? Is it something that that the president of the White House could say look this is this is a private matter and and we don't want to discuss the president's health any further. Yes. So if the president was a private citizen that would make perfect sense, but the president is not, and in this election season, we need to know the health of the candidates for President I've actually. Written about this, we know nothing actually about the health of the present the United States if you remember his clearance to run for office was famously pen by Dr Bornstein in New York who then later admitted that the president had drafted the letter for him. That's the letter that famously said that if elected, he would be the healthiest man ever to hold office. We know virtually nothing about the health prison the United States. Yet, he holds a the nuclear launch codes in his pocket. Look we. Health clearances for airline pilots and school bus drivers and secret service agents. We should probably know the health of the president of the United States. And it's interesting as doctors have often used as you point out hyperbole. I remember one saying he could live up to until two hundred until he was two hundred really quick. Is there any scenario where it would make sense for the vice president to be on standby for routine physical for the president? Not for routine physical if the president was going to receive unconscious sedation if he was needed to be put out let's say he was having a colonoscopy or having a a cardioversion for an abnormal heart rhythm or needed to undergo surgery with general anesthesia yet. It would need to be out in the twenty Fifth Amendment would need to be invoked. But not for just a routine matter.
Pence was on standby to 'take over' during Trump's unannounced hospital visit, new book claims
"Tonight the White House is responding to questions about President. Trump's health and his mysterious visit to Walter Reed Medical Center the President's physician issued a statement today and it said he could could not. Confirm rather that the president has not experienced nor been evaluated for stroke many stroke or any acute cardiovascular emergencies as have been incorrectly reported in the media. Now, to be clear, no major or reputable news outlet has actually claimed trump suffered quote mini strokes, but it does come as a new book claims Vice President Pence was put on alert to take over the duties of president. Trump had to be put under anesthesia during that November twenty, one, thousand, nine, hundred trip to Walter reet out front. Now Dr Jonathan Reiner, he is the director of the Cardiac Cath Lab at George Washington University and he advised the White House medical team under President George W Bush great to see you doctor Reiner that statement obviously laid out what didn't occur but not what did happen that day? Do you believe they're using a straw man argument here? Do not address would actually might have happened. Of course something obviously happened. On November sixteenth in the afternoon on Saturday, the president was hurried in urgent fashion in an unplanned fashion to Walter Reed. Now, the White House has prodigious medical capabilities. So if the president was taken to Walter Reed. He was taken there because there was something going on that they could either treat or evaluate at the White House and the white. House does not want us to know what that is. If they did the a presents physician today would have simply said, he didn't have any neurologic cardiac problem he simply had ex but then won't. Excited matter you know So the vice president pence I, want to actually go back to that question about whether the president's health should be a private matter. But before we get to that vice president pence was asked just moments ago about being on alert that day and here's what he said. Nothing out of the ordinary about that moment or or that day, and I just refer any other questions to the White House physician as far as being on standby. I don't I don't recall being told to be on standby. He would think well, if you were told to be on the president knew you would remember that but do you believe him? I think in the Watergate that call that a non denial denial right so yeah, you would think that if on a Saturday afternoon, you're called instead and you get to be on standby if you suddenly need to become president this afternoon. Yeah you might remember that. So yeah a vice presidents being disingenuous yet when we do need to know what happened that. So we'll talk about that. Why is it important for the public to know about the president's health and is it? Is it something that that the president of the White House could say look this is this is a private matter and and we don't want to discuss the president's health any further. Yes. So if the president was a private citizen that would make perfect sense, but the president is not, and in this election season, we need to know the health of the candidates for President I've actually. Written about this, we know nothing actually about the health of the present the United States if you remember his clearance to run for office was famously pen by Dr Bornstein in New York who then later admitted that the president had drafted the letter for him. That's the letter that famously said that if elected, he would be the healthiest man ever to hold office. We know virtually nothing about the health prison the United States. Yet, he holds a the nuclear launch codes in his pocket. Look we. Health clearances for airline pilots and school bus drivers and secret service agents. We should probably know the health of the president of the United States. And it's interesting as doctors have often used as you point out hyperbole. I remember one saying he could live up to until two hundred until he was two hundred really quick. Is there any scenario where it would make sense for the vice president to be on standby for routine physical for the president? Not for routine physical if the president was going to receive unconscious sedation if he was needed to be put out let's say he was having a colonoscopy or having a a cardioversion for an abnormal heart rhythm or needed to undergo surgery with general anesthesia yet. It would need to be out in the twenty Fifth Amendment would need to be invoked.
Number of coronavirus cases in U.S top 6 million
"The number of Americans killed has passed 183,000 and the number of cases among college students is rising after just days back on campus. But there's also a growing assault on the truth. President Trump Retweeted, a conservative website that's falsely claiming a much lower death rates and 183,000. They're saying just 9000. Dr. Lena Wen is an emergency physician in public health professor at George Washington University. Dr Wen Start with what you are seeing as you assess data from around the country. What stands out to you? What I'm selling Robin is that there is some good news that we have a declining number of cases around the country as a whole, which illustrates that the interventions that we put into place these interventions like mask mandates like restricting these in particular these very hybrid settings like indoor bars. That they are making a difference. And now we have schools open. We have university soon is coming back, and I do fear that we will be trending in the wrong direction soon that we are having these rolling waves around the country, and I think people need to keep in mind, especially as we come into Labor Day that we cannot do it all that we can't do all of our normal pre pandemic normal activities. So if we want schools to remain open, we need to be doing our best and limiting our interactions and these high risk settings and, of course to stay outdoors, wear masks in practice, social distancing. Well, and you When you say stay outdoors, we're going into
Trump and Abe's 'Unshakable Bond'
"Shinzo Abe and his family are political veterans, but one of his lasting legacies, maybe an alliance with the political novice. I grabbed him and hugged him because that's the way we feel, Donald President. You are excellent businessman. You have 4 ft. Up. Hill struggle, and this is the dynamism off democracy. He flattered President Trump and knew he understood President Trump's personnel. Mike Mochizuki is the U. S. Japan chair George Washington University. He says the Trump bromance forged over sumo wrestling, Gulf selfies and awkward handshakes, strengthen the bilateral relationship to confront China, North Korea and outlast Trump a understood distribution situation without a strong U. S. Japan relationship. Japan would not then I have the economy and freedom to pursue his own interests on top of the list. Revitalized military Japan purchased more U. S weaponry. He failed to revise the country's pacifist constitution pushed through changes that allow Japanese forces to fight in a crisis. This opened the way for Japan to cooperate with other countries, especially the stays on a variety of common sense missions economically, abenomics lowered interest rates, increased spending and pull the economy out of deflation. It achieved only modest success. He did manage to end political instability and a rotating door of leaders just to be able to stay in office. This law on to stabilize foreign policy and chip away at some of the economic challenges. No dad in itself, I think is a lasting achievement leaves his successor with major structural economic concerns, exacerbated by the and today in a final press conference and emotional Ob said it broke his heart to leave the job half done.
Dr. Fauci doubts safety, effectiveness of Russia’s new coronavirus vaccine
"Is not buying Russia's claims of a safe and effective covert 19 vaccine in a podcast hosted by George Washington University. Vouch, he says there's a big difference between just having a vaccine and proving in trials of the vaccine is safe and effective. Give it to hundreds of millions of people, Dr Fauci says. He's pretty sure the Russians have not been studying this intensely in a very large randomized, placebo controlled trial.
"george washington university" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"The actor the Senate's use me to remove the officer in question and without that consent the president had absolutely no power at all. Humphrey's executor involves a situation in which the Congress or even the Senate has no role whatsoever once the statute was enacted and by the way signed by the president. In this case Obama into law and the only restriction is that the president may not fire the director at will but must have some good reason for doing so and I think that this is an area where the court has said when we have limitations on presidential powers case called Nixon against GSA involving the residents of authority over his papers and Morrison against Olsen involving the independent counsel where the restrictions do not go to significantly impair the president's constitutional authorities then those limitations by Congress in a statute or constitutional. So here. It's not as though the president cannot remove the director at all. It's at the president has to have good reasons for doing so. And just because the president doesn't like the policies or wants to replace the current director with one of his political favorites That's not sufficient reason that seems to be to be the kind of limited restriction that Supreme Court has authorized in other contexts. When Congress makes that determination that it's necessary in order to achieve other ends in the statute in this case assuring a significant vigorous regulation of the Financial Services Industry for the benefit of consumers. Let me take you to a place where I don't think you want to go but let me try to. I'M GONNA make you go there Allen and that is you lose that argument to you lose on standing and case or controversy and the core could clues that the statute is unconstitutional. The court teed up another issue that had not been teed up originally by the parties namely so what? What's the remedy? What happens next? Do you have an opinion on that? Well I yes I do. And it's that that The restrictions on removal would be held to be unconstitutional but that the rest of the powers of the agency would go forward as the solicitor. General makes clear in his reply brief. The creation of this agency was very very important to Congress and at the time President Obama and the notion that if they knew that it was unconstitutional to have restrictions on removal that they would have not simply not created the agency but they would have wanted everything to go back to. It was before almost all of these powers of given to the CFP were powers that were dispersed in other agencies in the government and then they were made more specific and given greater potency The notion that Congress would want that entire creation to be unraveled and people sent back to agencies which they either never were or haven't been in a number of years seems to be that the government is plainly. Right that there this was intended to be several of the Supreme Court has made it clear in a number of cases that If there's an unconstitutional provisions it does not destroy the entire statute unless I believe the court has said it's clear that Congress would not have wanted to save the parts that were constitutional without the parts. That were unconstitutional. So there's clear several ability language as a little. There's several of the I believe it's in the entire bill But but the not in the particular title in which this is found so the seal argues. Well THEY THEY. They only met that if the if the CFP were unconstitutional wouldn't bring down the entire rest of dodd-frank which is an even more extreme position. A but I I think that even the absence or presence of ever ability clause has has the court said. Never been dispositive on this issue. Okay all right. We're Drawn to the end of our Podcast and Obviously You know you you you have. I think a as I mentioned earlier. A compelling argument to be made I think on a standing and and Tila lesser extent case or controversy. But I think they're both pretty good arguments and you know as I thought about the this case. I originally my knee jerk reaction when I heard the Supreme Court granted cert was all. They're going to do justice. Cavenaugh did his. They're gonNA follow his dissent in the P. H. Case they're gonNA find it's unconstitutional and then they're going to sever however the more I think about it. I think there was a pretty good chance. It could be unanimous opinion. Where the all the justice get together and pump the case. Either say that cert- was improperly granted. I don't think they'll do that either. Because it'll just another case I love right there but that Probably all the justices could get together and might be able to gas. Probably the only part of the case where there might be unanimity of opinion. That do you agree that you think it could be nine nothing on that. But I I. I only wish that you had a vote on this case That would be very helpful Second as I say often when I'm asked about these things I'm a litigator not a bookmaker and the odds of nine and nothing are not all that great. It's certainly possible of the the people who want to stain. The limits on removal would vote for any way not to avoid the merits and ironically the people on the other side that is would most tend to favor. The president are the strictest on the question of standing case or controversy and so appealing to that side of their Jurisprudential Mode. Maybe we've got the votes on that on that side. It's also an election year and this would be a very explosive issue on top of all the other issues the court has got and and I think it's right. I think our basic principle of we should not we. The court should not decide constitutional questions unless they're absolutely necessary should prevail here If the president and by the way the next president may say you know maybe that's right but I think that on balance the country is better off with the president not being able to fire people because after all if I put my people in now the next president could fire my people and I I would just as soon have them stay and having this kind of stability is better for the government as a whole. That's why Congress put it in there and I think that Congress has judgment on what's a fair tradeoff ought to be honored so they may never have to decide this. This question among other reasons because of many director of this agency if asked by the president to resign new president comes in rather than go through a big fight and a lawsuit and worry about getting paid not getting paid and looking petty does say all right. I'll I'll resign and you can replace me and guess what the country will go on without having a firm resolution of this constitutional question unless it's absolutely necessary Of course I know. You're not a a politician either Allen but in a way I was hoping that the outcome of this case might result in The Republicans and the Democrats getting together to amend the relevant provisions of dodd-frank to create a five member commission making it similar to the FTC But I rather doubt whether Whatever they might do here could result I it could end up with that result. I know I read in maybe one of the amicus. Briefs that Somebody argued that the court ought ought to find it unconstitutional. And then not decide on the remedy but give Congress appeared of six months to amend the statute to make constitutional and people were thinking that might be the thing that resulted in Congress. Going back to the five member commission that originally was in the house. Bill of Dodd Frank and that Elizabeth Warren supported. But do you have any view on that before we wrap things up till I have two observations on that I if the president had been interested in having a meaningful five member commission he had the power to get that through the House and the Senate in the first two years of his presidency and no one even propose that let alone try to enacted second? I doubt that this Congress can't agree on anything of significance these days. They're paralyzed except for cutting taxes and passing a blow through the roof budget and flashed is. That doesn't the problem because after all if seal is right that everything is void of. What's going to happen to everything that's happened before now? And what's the agency going to do for the next six months until Congress may be decide something and remember we're going to have an election This will come down in June. We're having election November. Does anybody really think the congress is going to do anything? And and then we're talking about a new Congress and maybe a new president of the same president That is a recipe for the ultimate disaster Leaving it to Congress in this situation is the worst kind of punt And I certainly hope the court doesn't do that right. Okay well Alan Will very much look forward to the oral argument and in particular The decision of the court. Which will we know? We'll have by the end of June when they convene for their summer recess. So thank you very.
"george washington university" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"And it was now issued with a director who who concedes that. She is Because she was appointed by this President. Removable at will. Would anything be any different? And I think the answer is clearly not and it's only because the CFP has not to withdraw the prior Demand issue another one that we even have this case in court. So I I guess unless the court is prepared to say that Anything that the CFP did is void illegal and of no force and effect from the beginning. I doubt that the court will buy the void argument. Okay Let me ask you another question that I gleaned from reading some of the reply briefs. You seem to argue that because only the president can be injured by the removal provision to the extent it limits his ability to faithfully execute the law. Only the president can set up a case in which the constitutionality of the provision is challenge such as by firing director cramming. Or how do you respond to Ceelo Laws? Argument which is made in response to Paul Laments. Right does argument that a private party has the right to raise separation of powers issues because such structural principles not only protect the president but also protect individuals and in fact every action taken by an unconstitutionally structured agency. I would begin by agreeing. In part that separation of powers principles are not meant just to protect other participants in the government? In this case. The president That argument was made and rejected in a case. I argued I N S V Chara involving the legislative veto. And it's clear that with respect to the proper appointment private parties have the right to object. That's a separation of powers kind kind of issue. A bad in a situation in which Example the Congress stepped in as did in a case involving. The Washington Metropolitan Area Airports Authority and tried to run the airport by by use of of congressional delay tactics. Spring Court said no private parties have the right to object to that but those provisions are there to assure that properly. Appointed officials are carrying out the law. This is the back end. This is a prevision which by the way there is nothing in the constitution giving the president the power to remove officers to begin with but everybody agrees that the president has that power yet. Nobody believes that that power is there to protect private parties. Except obviously CEELO think so here and it's all about it if you read the merits portions of the brief about the power of the president's to do this the power the president to execute the laws the notion that the power of the executive branch is vested in the president. None of those are injuries or writes that in any way have to do with private parties so a it would be a big stretch. I think to say that private parties have these rights. I guess I should also disclose to the audience that this standing argument was not made in several recent cases in which the court did reach the merits of removal restrictions. And the court could would have to say that Those cases are are distinguishable because they also involved appointments or the court could also say well we didn't that was a drive-by jurisdictional ruling. Nobody raise the issue now that somebody raises the issue. We have to face the question of whether private parties can and invoke a part of the constitution that is beneficial primarily if not exclusively to the president right. Well Let. Let's turn now Alan to the second issue that You mentioned namely is there a case or controversy that is a requirement under the constitution That cords don't give advisory opinions and you argue that there's no actual controversy here because the parties namely CEELO law and the government agree on the merits of the constitutional question. They both agree that the statute or this particular part of the statute is unconstitutional. So how do you respond to seal a laws argument? That's made in response to Paul. Clements moutainous argument that there is still controversy because the CFP be while acknowledging that the statutes unconstitutional it hasn't withdrawn the C. Ide- it's going full steam ahead to try to in connection with its investigation of CEELO law. How do you reconcile that? Well I think we reconciled in this way that this is entirely within the control of the CFPB. Now they could withdraw that. Cid Tomorrow and issue a new one instead in which the with the director who now concedes that she may be removed without a cause and the chosen not to do that. they you. They have in essence setup a case it's just as if the president went to court and said. I wanted to clarify Tori judgment that I can fire. The the director at will in a case called rains against bird the supreme court was faced with the kind of the opposite situation in which a member of Congress went to court seeking to declare the LEGISLA. The line item veto unconstitutional. The court said that the members of Congress had no standing because they would be in effect asking for an advisory opinion and in that very case the court said it similarly the president could not ask for an advisory opinion which is in essence. What he's he's doing here. I also cited my brief a case from just a few years ago called United States Against Windsor. That was the case involving the defense of marriage. Act in which the claim was that the plaintiff in that case had paid three hundred fifty thousand dollars or so in a state tax because the statute did not denied rather The marital exemption in the estate tax for same sex married couples while granting it to opposite sex married couples the government originally defended the action In a similar case and then switch positions and by the time the case got to the Supreme Court the Government is one hundred percent aligned on the merits with the plaintiff of and the Supreme Court. Ask for it. A meekest to argue the case that there was no case or controversy and the case could not be decided because of the agreement between the parties the House of Representatives who ironically somewhat was represented in that case by. Paul Clement had intervened in the District Court to argue that the statute was constitutional. The court by a vote of six to three decided that it had a sufficient case or controversy to reach the merits although the similar case arising from California's prop eight. The court said it did not have sufficient case of controversy. Because in that case the governor and the Attorney General agreed that they propagate was unconstitutional. Those cases are very similar to this one. And while in Windsor the Doma case there was a very pragmatic considerations involved. There were eleven hundred. Federal Statutes affected by. Doma was no other way that the case could be decided if the court had not reached the merits and all the parties asked the court to reach the merits. And so and even in that case it was a vote of six three one of the votes in favor of it was by a Justice Alito. Who said it was alright because the house had become an intervening party. There IS NO INTERVENING PARTY. Here in this case so And by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas Join Justice Scalia's opinion on the lack of case or controversy And and I think that given the readily easel easy way for the president to get this issue decided The courts say no. We're not going to decide this case. And whether they refuse on standing or case a controversy grounds we are not going to a in effect Decide a friendly lawsuit. Yeah I mean your legal arguments I think are quite compelling Allen but there's a practical issue that I find troubling and that is that I mean we know that president trump is not going to try to remove Kathy Kranenburg. He appointed her and he appointed her probably because he knew that she would run the agency the way he would like the agency to be rung. So he's not GonNa do it Now I suppose if we have a Democratic president that gets elected in November that Come after he or she gets sworn in At that point that president might try to remove Kathy Kranenburg but I would guess based on what Kathy chroniclers already said namely that she believes that she can be removed at any time by the president. I doubt if she's going to change her mind when it's a Democratic president there I don't think and so it's got to be very hard to get this case litigated. I think It would've it may have been I agree with your point that while Cordray's serve for ten months While trump was in office and he considered removing Cordray but he never did and could have done it. But that's sort of that's water over the dam but looking forward we have all these challenges that have been made in the context of I think practically every enforcement preceding that the CFPB. Pb has been involved in Sense Kathy Kranenburg has become director This constitutional issues raised all the time. Don't you think they'll be some sort of Feeling on the part of the cord call it a practical concern that maybe we ought to get to the merits and and move on well. I'm sure there are some people who will argue that. We want this constitutional issues decided but I refer you to justice. Scalia his dissenting opinion in the Doma case in which he makes it very clear that that's not the job of the courts to decide cases unless they have to decide them especially momentous constitutional issues. Like this but you know maybe even there are other agencies headed by single members Social Security Administration is one of the the the Federal Housing Agency is is another. Maybe the president could find another person to fire there. In addition as I think you may know the arguments in this case are a that. The case of humphries executors involving the Federal Trade Commission is distinguishable in in the for cause removal there because it was a multi member agency. But even if it's not distinguishable those cases argues the government and Seila are wrong and they should be overruled. And if the president wants to fire somebody. He's got plenty of hold-overs of Democrats in multi member agencies around the government. And if he wants to fire somebody enough to pick a fight about that he can do that Indeed one of my arguments on the standing argument is that if CEELO law has standing here so does every single person organization company. That's been affected by any order of the SEC the FTC the NLRB The Federal Communications Commission the Federal Election Commission. If it ever issues any other orders and any other multi member agency with four. 'cause removals anyone can challenge any action on that grounds and everybody under seal. Us Theory would have standing. I think that ought to be a pretty scary notion for the court to allow that kind of standing to go forward but if they believe that they have standing and they believe that the law should be interpreted that way. The president does have other opportunities. But you know this is not a debating society this is the Supreme Court of the United States. And it's not supposed to decide hard questions of major constitutional importance unless they're DESA. -sarily presented a necessary to be decision. Okay so I if it turns out that the court disagrees with you on standing in case a controversy and it gets to the merits I understand your position. Is that the statute as written is constitutional right at correct. Although my brief does not focus on that particular issue right right but I agree with that proposition and you base that. On the case you referred to Morrison's estate Humphry. Stay Humphries Humphries. Yeah yes What was involved in that? Case cases from nineteen thirty five involve President Roosevelt's a decision. To Fire Mr Humphries as a member of the Federal Trade Commission the Federal Trade Commission had similar restrictions on route to what's involved here and President Roosevelt said. He wanted somebody else who was more in line with his views. Humphries was fired. He passed away. His estate sued for money. Damages and the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that. The limits on the power of the president to remove in that case in that statute were constitutional. And that is the that and some other cases as well In which the court upheld limitations on removal that would the house and poke lament argue in their briefs are strong support for The restrictions here. So you don't buy the distinction that is made by Ceelo law and the CFP to the effect that they FTC was a or is a five member commission. It was a five member commission. At the time that Humphries State Was decided here. We're talking and IT'S A. It's a bipartisan commission. where you know where the argument goes that Things cannot be done by one individual by fee out It it takes. It takes a village. You've gotta get all five commissioners you don't have to get them all agree but you gotta get three of them to agree and that makes it different than the situation here where you have one individual who basically can do whatever he or she wants to do subject to laws of course but yes Well I guess the first question is where is that distinction in the Constitution and the answer is no place second The court has recognized that the original case on which the Solicitor General Steel rely case called Myers against the United States in which there was a very very long opinion by former president and chief justice. William Howard Taft in which he upheld upheld the president's firing in that case a but the important point about that case as the springboard is recognized subsequently is that the limitation there was that the president had to get the approval of Congress..
"george washington university" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"And if you like our podcast please let us know about it You can leave as review on Apple. Podcast Google play or whatever other platform. You use for your podcast. So let's turn to today's subject and it's a timely indeed Today I am very pleased to be joined by professor. Alan Morrison Allen is Associate Dean at the George Washington University Law School where he teaches constitutional law and civil procedure. He has extensive litigation experience in the field of separation of powers. Which is the subject of what we're going to be talking about today. That is we're going to once again. I really on the eve of the oral argument in the. Us Supreme Court in the seal log case. We're GONNA DELVE INTO THAT. Case and ED by the end of the PODCAST Hopefully you all have a better idea of what you think. The court may do to resolve the case. First of all. Let me welcome you. Professor Morrison. And if you don't mind we'll call you Allen says I can call you Allen you can call me Alan. Okay good and we're going to confuse our audience today with two Allen's On the show okay So let's do a little bit a level setting here for those in our audience Allen who may not be as familiar with the seal a law case as certainly you and I are so tell us what that case What the issue is and what the procedural history in the posture today. Well it's a little bit of a wind up so let me go back to the Dodd Frank. Act in two thousand and ten in which The congress was trying to deal with problems arising out of the great recession. And as part of the Dodd Frank Act Congress enacted an idea that was now senator Elizabeth Warren's brainchild to consolidate all the financial services regulation of consumer financial matters into a single agency the House of Representatives originally put that into the bill and had it as a multi member agency that it was headed by. I believe three individuals all appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate subject to removal. Only for 'cause when the matter got to the House we got to the Senate. The Senate changed the form of the Agency. But not its mission. It turned it into a single member agency headed by director also appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate and also subject to removal only for cause in addition the financing for this agency was set so that the money came directly from the Prophets of the Federal Reserve System in Congress. Didn't have anything to do with it. And it had very few other limitations on the ability of the director to carry out the mission in other words. Caguas wanted this job done. They wanted a financial regulator not tied to the banking industry who would regulate on behalf of consumers. This idea was subject to a lot of criticism not specially at the time of the legislation but as soon as the law was passed and people started to realize that there was going to be a new tiger in town that would becoming after a financial institutions in ways that had not happened before and shortly thereafter various challenges were were brought to actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as it came to be known and one of those cases went to the DC circuit now justice and then judge. Cavanaugh was one of the dissenters who believe that the arrangement for the organization was unconstitutional. And I'll get to that in just in just a minute. That case did not go to the Supreme Court But meanwhile other cases were winding their way through the court including now Seila Law Seattle began with a demand by the CFP. Be as it's known for certain records and certain other information and a seal. Aw gave them some. But then resisted and so the CFP be went to court in the CA- in California a federal court to enforce their demand and seal objected on among other reasons on the grounds that the agency was unconstitutional. There are two aspects of potential agency unconstitutionality. A here a one of which is not in the case which is a fairly common challenge and that is to the appointment of the appointments clause of the constitution sets up principal officers and inferior officers and then below them our employees and there has been a fair amount of litigation over the status of those officers. Everybody agrees that the director here is a principal officer and that he now a she was properly appointed what the dispute is about. And this is the issue before the court is whether the limits on the ability of the president to remove the director except for cause is unconstitutional restriction on the power of the president. When the case was filed in the District Court the Bureau was allowed by statute to represent itself and it defended the constitutional challenge on the merits. When the case got to the Court of Appeals it agreed and the night circuit agreed that the law was constitutional largely relying on the DC circuit case. That upheld it over a divided. Vote a seal. Aw then filed a petition for Sharara and after taking an extension the government came in now represented not by the bureau but by the Solicitor General on behalf of the president who said that the restriction on the removal was unconstitutional as a limitation on the power. The president to take care of the laws be faithfully executed at this point in the briefing. The government suggested that the court appoint a an make us to argue in favor of the constitutionality as soon as that happened. The House of Representatives filed a motion for leave to follow NECAS. Brief out of time saying it would defend the constitutionality and I filed amicus brief at that stage arguing first that because of the agreement between the parties on the merits there was no active. Case or controversy in the court should not decide the case and in addition that brief argued that the seal law had no standing to object to restrictions on the power the president that only the president could act and that the proper way to get that issue before the court was the president to fire somebody in this case the director of Seila and if that person contested as it happened in two earlier cases then the president could have his case. Controversy in the court could decide the case properly. The court has now appointed an meekest. Paul Clement a former solicitor general and one of the top advocates in the Supreme Court to defend the law I filed an additional brief amplify my prior arguments at the merits stage and the House of Representatives has also come in to defend the case both the House and Park lament have argued that there is no standing here. The case is not in the proper posture for this challenge and they urged the court not to reach the merits of they do not embrace my somewhat larger argument that there's no case or controversy In this case as well so that's where we stand and the argument is all set for the third of March right Okay Thank you Excellent job in Succinctly summarized in where we are today wasn't I'm sorry it wasn't more succinct but there's a lot of procedural steps that. Oh Yeah Yeah. There's certainly is so Let's dig a little deeper into Into the case and let's focus first on standing And your argument And the argument that Paul Clement has made that. The House is made that there is no standing and I like you to explain that in more detail. Sure the law standing which is in particularly in this court a quite restrictive law that is it generally does not a wide ranging set of issues that allowed people to challenge actions by the government focuses on whether there has been an injury to the plaintiff from the unlawful or unconstitutional. Act of the of the defendant in this case. The director usually comes up. This case is a little bit odd because the standing issue arises with respect to a defense that has been raised by Seila law a Nazia laws original claim and the argument is very simply that a person is not entitled to rely on a constitutional defect here the method of removal of the director unless that person is injured by that constitutional defects and in our view. The only person who is harmed by that restriction is the president of the United States and that Seila law has can show no connection between the harm suffered by the president and any harm that hit. It has suffered in the in this case. This is not a case in which they're claiming director was not properly appointed. See Look concedes that the director was properly appointed and that would be a claim for which it has standing but we argue that the court only has standing in a case in which someone has been fired and the president argues that the firing was lawful and the president of the employees or the officer argues that it was unlawful because the statutory restriction the president then counters and says that restriction is unconstitutional among other things. Of course it assures us that we have all the facts and circumstances of the firing to see whether in fact there might have been caused whether it otherwise complied with the statute and we honor the principle of constitutional avoidance which is that we courts especially the US Supreme Court should not decide cases if there are adequate other means of deciding them That do not raise a standing problems such as we have here. Okay so Let me let me push back a little bit. Alan on that So you argue. Seila law doesn't have any standing to challenge the removal provision because it hasn't suffered an injury resulting from the fact that the director couldn't could be couldn't be removed at will by the president. How do you respond to seal a laws argument that it did suffer such an injury because any action taken by an unaccountable director was void? And it doesn't have to show that a hypothetical accountable director would have taken a different action. Well one of the things about sealers. Brief I it's only in their reply. Brief that you find that and by the way the government doesn't say that seal is that the CFP B.'s. Actions were void governments. Very careful not to say that but void is a very capricious term and. I don't think that everything that the director has done since. The beginning of time is unconstitutional. And therefore no matter whether anybody objected or not No matter what the action was that because there is this defect in the removal provision. That everything that's happened is illegal. That's a very far out position and I don't believe it's warranted. The court has been very careful in other contexts to be sure to not use the term void except the most extreme cases. And it's hard to imagine that that this action has been taken is void in the sense that the court has used it I think what they're doing is they're saying well yes. We can't show any connection but we don't have to show any connection and I don't think that the courts requirements of traceability and redress ability are met understanding doctrine in this case either and that the injury is only to the president. A perhaps it'd be better better example. Suppose that today of the CFP be withdrew the.
"george washington university" Discussed on KTRH
"Air National Guard Ehrman our very own robberies better seller yes when questioning the results of the election was so bad they said troops to lose indeed he won't say he will bow down and kiss Hillary's ring that'll blow to democracy into flux and bad things are gonna happen troll has to say before the vote did he's gonna lose and then he's going to support Hillary he has to do it otherwise democracies in danger well speaking at George Washington University what are we three years after the election let it go lady such bitterness such chomping on the better route Hillary shopping all the better route she's still finding excuses do you remember all the excuses first it was your damn women you women let your man tell you had a low number that then it was the Democrats because they're all socialists remember she said when forty five percent of Iowa Democrats supported Bernie Sanders instead of me that tells you what I was up against so you got the women you got the socialists she's always blame the blacks there's a seasoning hatred by Hillary for the blacks and I can tell you that Barack winning in two thousand eight I bet you when she got good tanked up on that Chardonnay who about three o'clock when she was two bottles in with some of her girlfriends just better white women they said the staff away locked the doors and just scream at the top of their lungs it does black people especially black man they want to presidency from her and then by the time she ran she was so old fable she had to be we should flop over that have to roll over into the back of a van poor thing I actually feel sorry for she went as bad as Joe Biden is for twenty twenty it's going to be terrible to watch bad bite is going to end up being like report better gives birth and I'm not joking is gonna win the nomination and then we're gonna have these think pieces if Biden dies before the election if Biden dies before the inauguration what would be the constitutional procedure our guest now is Alan Dershowitz to discuss this eventuality here's Hillary at George Washington University chop it on that bitter root now I was the first person who ran for president in more than fifty years without the protection of the voting rights act and let me just say it makes a difference we saw that once again during the twenty eighteen mid term affections which were a case study in voter suppression voters faced intimidation and harassment that echoed some of the worst chapters in our nation's history voter ID requirements amounted to a modern day poll tax voter ID requirements which were literally made up for the purpose of preventing certain people from actually being able to cast a vote that would be counted we saw you are voting place for this long lines and malfunctioning equipment again in certain places in North Dakota we saw sweeping efforts to prevent people from voting particularly native Americans living on reservations in North Carolina Republican operatives illegally collected absentee ballots fill them in and bail them from post offices near voters homes and don't you find it interesting all of the politicians who have argued for years for stricter IDE rules and limits on early voting are curiously quiet about these proven abuses that is no accident it is in service to their larger political goals of obtaining and keeping power you know when someone loses a presidential race that's when you learn a lot about their metal that swing you learn whether they would have been a good president or not and Hillary is reminding us good grief she got so close she would have been a terrible precedent that nagging way that whining that she lost that excuse making that never taking personal responsibility for terrible campaign the thing about it is she's approximately three percent as the retaining list with can you use let me just say it makes a difference we show linear at the village of Rockville opening in fall twenty twenty is rifles newest senior living destination nestled in a quiet neighborhood when there is designed for individuals want more choice.
"george washington university" Discussed on KQED Radio
"DC special counsel, Robert Mueller's four hundred page report has finally been published. Mr. Mueller's report says he found no criminal conspiracy between Mr. Trump's campaign and Russia, but could not reach a concrete legal conclusion on whether Donald Trump tried to obstruct the investigation itself it details. Ten instances where investigators looked into whether President Trump has tried to criminally obstruct the probe, but it does not come to a conclusion I talked to Jonathan Turley professor of public interest law at George Washington University in Washington DC, what really comes out of the record is this very detailed. And in some cases disturbing picture from the White House. The president alternately was saved from himself by his staff. You know, the president clearly wanted to fire. The special counsel that would have amounted for many people to an act of obstruction. But you have this amazing scene where the president ordered his White House counsel to fire the special counsel and the White House counsel refused. Refused. A direct order of a sitting president. And it's for that reason that this president was able to get through this scandal, very likely without a serious criminal despite himself. It seems. That's right. I mean, it's not easy to obstruct something that's not a crime. But the president made a determined effort. I mean, he almost did that. So there's no criminal charges. But the report does highlight that he did try to do it. Well, he certainly did try to know whether that constitutes obstruction certainly be debated. But it does leave the sort of odd zen like question if the president or. Ordered an act considered obstruction, and nobody listened is it still an active obstruction? And the fact is he didn't fire the special counsel. He didn't destroy any evidence. He didn't force the investigation to a premature ending. So if you separate his rhetoric the records, not that bad, but he clearly had an intent to be obstructive. At least on that issue. There is an interesting part in the report where the president is quoted as using. An exploitive word, and he says, oh my God. This is a quote. Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I am dot dot dot what does that tell us about the state of mind of the president? Because as you say he does feel vindicated now after the report was published. He says I'm having a good day. It doesn't seem that. He was that easy going as the investigation was announced. Well in fairness to the president the special counsel does say that he believes that the president. Was primarily concerned about. How how this was going to affect his administration as opposed to ending the investigation. Especial council does say that he fired James call me, the former FBI director not because he wanted to stop the investigation. But because he was upset that Komi wooden say publicly what Komi was saying cravenly that the president was not actually a target of the investigation. What will the Democrats do now? Well, the Democrats themselves are in a bit of a bind the leadership never wanted to impeach Trump. But they ran on teaching Trump to regain pow control the house, but it was never very plausible that they wanted to actually remove Trump. Why would they should bring about a pensive ministration? So the Democrats always wanted to wound but not kill Trump leave him in office Nemec state. Well, they've succeeded in doing that and continue to play up this report investigate Trump. But there's not any real indication. They're moving towards an impeachment. Looking forward though, does this report in hinder his possible reelection, actually, I think the report strengthened his reelection in a couple of respects collusion really was negated as a theory in this report. That's what started all of this. Also, most of those people who were convicted were convicted of. Unrelated crimes, there never was a serious collusion case made against anyone except the Russians who did the hacking, but that wasn't for collusion that was for the effort to disrupt the election. So I think in the end the president is strengthened by the report in that he can say with justification that they did not find some crying connected to collusion. But these stories come out of the report will be played back. The problem is that Trump is this 'nigma, you know, he's not a more president in the way he conducts himself and that frill thumb and then a polls others, but that's not a change. That was professor Jonathan Turley at professor public interest law at George Washington University. Newsday from the BBC World.
"george washington university" Discussed on News & Talk 1380 WAOK
"From George Washington University hospital this morning after she broke three ribs in a fall at our office on Wednesday. Her nephew said last night that she was doing great President Trump says he is cited executive order restricting eligibility for migrants seeking asylum in the US democrat support our new immigration laws. Bring us up to date the laws are obsolete and they're incompetent. They are. The worst flaws any country has anywhere in the world. Apple White House today. Trump told reporters migrants who come into the US illegally cannot seek asylum. They must do. So at designated ports of entry Trump said he wants people to come into America from other countries. But stressed that they must do. So legally over twenty million Californians are under a red flag warnings today as Windsor causing wildfires spread across the state forcing thousands from their homes the town of paradise in northern California's foothills. Has been all but destroyed by the campfire in southern California. Jayson Campadonia reports. Another blaze is threatening thirty thousand homes on the Los Angeles Ventura County line Woosley fire is estimated at about eight thousand acres, but the fire is growing due to the high winds in the area. Most forecasters say the winds are expected to pick up later today. Allowing for the flames to chew up more dry fuel in the area, southern California. Investigators are continuing their efforts to find a motive in a Thousand Oaks deadly mass shooting I and long is expected of killing twelve people at a bar before taking his own life. Some eighteen hundred people attended a vigil last night to remember those who were killed Thousand Oaks mayor Andy FOX spoke at townhall, we will be more loving more compassion, more unified and more full of hope more than three hundred Macy's employees are ready for their clown. Roles in the upcoming ninety second Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. Macy's officials say they've completed their clown university. Crash course, you're listening to the latest from NBC News Radio. Yeah. We sorta stopped paying attention and racked up a lot of. Yeah. It was stressful. He blamed me for my credit card debt and lamed him for building that man cave. It's awesome..
"george washington university" Discussed on KSRO
"Got a question from Eric Parker on my Twitter feed about multiple people shot in Philadelphia and the answer is. Yeah. There apparently is or five people have been taken to a hospital Germantown section of Philadelphia this afternoon. The victims ages nineteen through twenty three were outside a Dollar General store when a white Chevrolet Impala pulled up in front of them to gunman inside fired eighteen shots. So I don't want to prejudge. But it sounds like it was a drive by shooting of some kind with these young people. So Jonathan Turley who I like. George Washington University law, professor. Was asked this morning about what he thinks Jeff flake is going to do. It's very hard to say because Senator flake has been something of a moving target on this. There's a danger to creating new types of prerequisites. You know, it's a danger of looking like you're doing us or hamlet a hamlet on the Potomac performance. You have to at some point be very clear as to what you I think. Many of these senators are going to want to see how broad the investigation was how many people were interviewed. I think many of them are not going to like what President Trump said last night. I I don't think it was particularly appropriate for the president to go after a sexual assault alleged sexual assault victim before the FBI investigation came in particularly. But also in the midst of all this that's not gonna play with Susan Collins. But I think this is one of those things where it depends on the audience, but the audience in DC is different from the audience in Mississippi. Sure is so that was yeah. That was the audience in Mississippi last night was all rallied up on it and everything else. But the question now is coming down to wait. Wait, wait. Wait, wait, what he hasn't reinterviewed Dr Ford or judge Cavanaugh, and Jonathan Turley says they may not know it really is not necessary. As a general rule, these people gave extensive statements under oath that gave all the details. They said that they can remember I think many of the Democrats are going to be nipped that the FBI didn't go back and challenged judge Cavanaugh on things like the definition from his yearbook. But I do think that that reflects what's really the strategy here. I think that the Democrats all along we're looking at a type of perjury trap to present. These these terms to force him either to give rather embarrassing definitions or not answer. And I think they're going to be disappointed that the FBI doesn't play that game. Yeah. So the FBI takes a testimony of both of these people, and it was hours, and hours and hours and hours of testimony. And then it goes out and matches it up with other people. Dave in here from Nevada City, California. Hi, dave. Sorry about the quality. I'm in the car driving. You're good. You're good. I think it was a very wise move or President Trump to make those statements that this political rally he's not there to promote cabinet or two. Change the hearts of the Cropper's antics. He's there for the people that have made up their mind yet. And those people are not political at all they they hear the sound bikes all day long today. All I've heard is though soundbites Trump made yesterday true. Trump. So I think it was very wise move for Trump. Even Turley said look at Washington DC is where he needs to care about not Mississippi. So you're talking about the midterms. But right now, we got a boat coming up within a couple of days about this judge. And does Senator though senators don't really care about sexual abuse or anything like that what they cared about their political high. Right. They'll be looking at the polls these sound bytes. Let's go to change those pulse. Well, he's gotta get the Republicans that are on the fence gotta get two of the three. That's what he needs. Or he needs to get a democrat or two Democrats Heidi Heitkamp is way behind in her race for re-election, and she can bury yourself by voting against Kevin. Oh, so she may be a vote. So maybe maybe they can lose two Republicans pick up a democrat pick up one of the Republicans in and cavenaugh will be will be put on the court. I I don't know. Do you think this is going to move on whatever happens? Whatever happens with vote this story go away or is this something they're going to keep alive until November six. They'll keep live in the Democrats the live as long as they can. But now, they're their public image is changing for them. And it's not like they expected it to. Yeah. Yes. There's a lot of people out there that are looking at.
"george washington university" Discussed on WMAL 630AM
"What is in this day and age what what does that mean? Exactly. You can connect them because it's politically expedient to do. So now, I look I I can accept this and that the oceans little warmer, and there's more CO two and China and India and the EU continue to increase their output, even as we decrease our out. Put yet somehow we're still the bad guy in this because that's how the left operates. But literally, we're still the bad guys. We're the ones decreasing co two output. China's not India's not the EU is not most of the signatories. And I read from this United Nations thing yesterday or day before yesterday the woman at the United Nations who's the head of climate. Whatever said that they're changing the weather. She said, they're changing the weather if they could change the weather. I don't think I'd want them to. I don't think I want you to start messing with that stuff. But I and then the cartoon the Tom tolls cartoon say global warming thing to and it's all our fault. You see it's all our fault. It's a it's a cartoon drawn to colored no color cartoon, and there's a huge storm, and it says human intensified storms written on it. It's human intensified starts. He knows that because his party told him and as party told him that there were three thousand people. In Puerto Rico, and there's no dissuading him. I promise you and under human intensified storms. There's little Uncle Sam standing there because we're the bad guy. Even though our CO two is going down and everybody else is going up, and it says close encounters of the incurred kind close encounters of the incurred say, it's it's it's a bit of a stretch. But there's Uncle Sam. And a woman is saying that Tonko Sam, I guess, she's probably I don't know Hillary butter or something close encounters of the incurred. And it's not only America's fault. It's Republican's fault say because we're pro energy, and energy independence, and we burn cleaner here than than they do anyplace else. And it's better to buy locally than had it shipped from the Middle East. And it's better to pay our own employees rather than slave labor in Saudi Arabia and money going to princes that by airliners to fly around in with hookers. And it's. It's better if we get our energy here at home, that's obvious to any thinking person. But there it is. And if you don't, and this is this is one of the things I like about global warning is when when people attack you, and and people attack me for it from time to time, naturally, they say, you don't even believe in global warming might well is it an article of faith because science is not I believe in gravity because I can prove it that's a science thing. Now, I shouldn't have to believe in it. It should be demonstrable. And then they say this storm Florence. Demonstrates. I just don't think that it does this is for real. It is not made. It is not made up Mr. hand. I didn't make it up. And and again, you look at Hazel in nineteen fifty four and Hugo at nineteen Eighty-nine and lots and Katrina lots of other big hurricanes. I gotta ten in nineteen thirty eight the great northeastern hurricane the Long Island express and our records. Really don't go back very far and the records that go back a little further are not great records. We didn't have weather satellites until I was. Yeah. In fourth grade or something. And so we haven't been tracking this stuff for all that long in a in a very capable way, marvel marvel I say, I'm gonna get told us, and it was it was congressman Bennie Thompson. Right. That yesterday wanted the president to resign the presidency because in a tweet he questioned the George Washington University study, you can't do that. You cannot question. A study. It was done by lefties, and it's being peddled by lefties, and if you question it with crazy things like, and again, it's like the it's like the little boy and the emperor has no clothes if you question it your shouted down by the mob because you're not invited to question authority. Don't you know who they are? There are thirty. Don't question them that whole button bumper sticker tee-shirt thing question authority that fell by the wayside when the left became a thirty now questioning authority is punishable punishable Icee, and they tell you they just tell you what the number of and you accept it or not there's more to get into in that. And and and plenty then there's the Dianne Feinstein story. The Brett Kavanagh's say judge who was nominated to sit on the supreme court. He will sit on the supreme court. But yesterday Senator Dianne Feinstein came out with a letter a letter, I say, and and she's had it since June, June or July. She's had it since earlier this summer since July. She's had it since July, and and there have been hearings and she's met with them one on one and it never came up anywhere. She's had this letter forever. And now she thinks she's got she's like Senator Joe McCarthy, I have in my hand a letter contains the names of and and this is her kind of Senator McCarthy moment and once again. I've got to say we've got another anonymous thing, and this is the leftist very big on this these days. The New York Times op-ed piece from anonymous the deep state throat inside of the Trump White House attempting to undermine the government of the United States, the duly elected leadership the United States because the self righteous preening obvious. Anti Trump people inside the government are trying to well undo the results of the election by engaging in a scurrilous form of subterfuge. And and that's an anonymous person, right? The Woodward book is full of anonymous people the Dianne Feinstein letter, which allegedly accuses Brett cabinet of some kind of sexual misdeed which reportedly dates back to high school high school. I believe that he's fifty three years old now, I think that's right. I think he's fifty three years old and Dianne Feinstein has been sitting on a letter since July, perhaps literally, but definitely figuratively. And they Fifty-three-year-old Cavanaugh is now. That's right. Fifty three been tak- is being taken a task. Because of an anonymous letter from an anonymous person making an anonymous claim which she will not explain, but they're leaking that it's of a sexual nature and that it dates back to high school many decades ago. I think I might know what it is. I think that it's possible that at the junior prom. He put a hard-boiled egg in his front pocket. I think that might be that could be it and that will prevent him from sitting on the supreme court. This is actually just about the craziness of the democrat party and the left and trying to appease the extreme. Cream, violent left that is making obscene phone calls to Susan Collins Senate office, and and so this is about trying to appease, the violent angry left that they and the whole thing is so crazy. He's going to sit on the supreme court and suddenly abortions going to be overturned. I don't know what planet you guys are from. But that's not really how things work in the world. People are nuts. I know I've got very little time. But let's go to let's go to the phones. Let's go to Nick in Manassas, Virginia, nNcholas, you're on the Chris Plante show. How you doing? I'm good, Nick. I just wanted to ask you about Paul Ryan yesterday. And I feel that the American Legion. Yeah. The media saturation from this reporting on this whatever that came out of George Washington University. Crazy. Yeah. I had four out of five at the American Legion. Mostly Republicans on that one democratic. The number was three thousand from Puerto Rico. Yeah. I couldn't believe it. Yeah. Sure. Well, you said four out of five people bought into it. Or just the democrat bought into it. The democrat just the one democrat. He said other three thousand deaths. Now. Thousands. The democrat new. I don't I don't think I understand. Now, the democrat he knew the number. He wouldn't come up with it. Republicans said that there were three thousand. The media that I'm talking about. Okay. About eighteen years in the American Legion. So it's all veterans, and and the four Republicans were buying into the the media bombardment three thousand dead rat off the problem of their head. Just ask the question hair. It is it's the power of the propaganda machine. Man. They own it everywhere. It's on Stephen Colbert. It's it's you know, it's on the morning, noon and night. It's on the front page of the paper. It's on the local news. It's everywhere and thanks, Nick. And they and they just they just put it out there, and it becomes an article of faith. That's that's.
"george washington university" Discussed on KQED Radio
"George Washington University's public health school to look into the question last month were CEO accepted. The study's conclusion that nearly three thousand people died as a result of the storms affects today. President Trump said three thousand people did not die in the to hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico when I left the island after the storm had hit they had anywhere from six to eighteen deaths. In fact, when Air Force One left quarter Rico the death toll stood at forty five. Mr. Trump said the higher estimates were done by the Democrats in order to make me look as bad as possible. If a person died for any reason like old age just add them onto the list. Republican response was largely muted one exception, Florida governor Rick Scott, a candidate for the US Senate who said I disagree with an independent study said thousands were lost. We're joined now by Philip bump, Washington Post, national correspondent who focuses on the numbers behind politics. Phil thanks for being with us as we heard in the tape this new higher estimate from George Washington University. How was that reached how was that number reached? So the conclusion they reached was that. There was a range in three thousand was the most likely values that they came up with in that range was determined by looking at what the normal level of mortality was Puerto Rico and. How that level of mortality had increased in the months after the storm for about six months after the storm. So essentially if say one hundred people died normally in November in Puerto Rico if after the storm one hundred and fifty head died, they basically would take a estimate about fifty additional people had died. It was it was that sort of analysis. They did for an extended period after the storm that allow them to come up with this value, and I should say that there's Washington University's school of public health. Put out a statement that said we stand by the science underlying our study, we are confident that the number two thousand nine hundred seventy five is the most accurate and unbiased estimate of excess mortality to date. So this wasn't a list. They didn't go counting. That's death certificates over this time. That's exactly right. And in fact, that probably wouldn't even have worked one of the things I spoke with researchers from the university of Delaware's disaster recovery center last year in anticipation that this might become a problem. And the thing that was pointed out to me is that most of these causes of death. If for example, someone has diabetes and their insulin. That needs to be kept refrigerated. They can't keep a refrigerator because they lose electricity because of the storm and unfortunately die as a result of that. Because of death is listed on their desert epic is not going to be they died as a result for Maria. It's going to be that they died because of diabetes, and so all of the causes of death that would be listed on those decifit gets. Anyway, might not necessarily reflect the true reason that they died at the point that they did which was the after effects of this storm. So two points coming out of that number one is that when the president said that they just added people onto the list there was no list. That's exactly right. That was that was just political rhetoric. And Secondly, you've written a lot about the the complexities of of reaching death tolls. Figuring out of debt souls after natural disasters. And you talk about that sort of the direct effects of people deaths from direct effects, and sort of the indirect effects. So the direct effects of dying from the storm are for example, going outside during the storm and having a tree hitching the head being in your home and having having a flooding and drowning as a result of it. We we're we're pretty familiar with those. Direct effects, obviously, lamentable and tragic, but we're really talking about here is that period afterward that period of months where Puerto Rico much of Puerto Rico lacked electricity lacks potable water lacked clear roads, which was a problem. The the post in may told the story of a woman who who died in her home in part because they couldn't reach medical workers based cell phones weren't working and in part because ambulance got caught in traffic because traffic lights weren't working. These are the sorts of deaths that are a direct result of the storm. But we're talking directly attributable to these storm itself those two day period. And the remarkable thing what the president did today is he asked us to focus only on those direct effects from the storm and ignore the preventable deaths that happened in the weeks and months afterward, the preventable deaths that were ultimately the responsibility of the federal and local government to prevent and you said you tweeted this afternoon that when you spoke to researchers last year they were concerned about how President Trump might use this sort of uncertainty. About the exact number for political reasons. Well, I wouldn't say that they expressed the Dave themselves were concerned how Trump would do this. But they did note that it was not uncommon for death tolls from these sorts of disasters to become political footballs in as part of our conversation as up front when I spoke with them that this could be something which could be politically problematic down the road. And so we had a conversation in which they noted that these things are never able to be pinpoint accurate simply because of the way that these deaths occur and as a result of that they often become subject to political Macintoshes. It's unusual. However that we see that in the United States after Katrina, for example, there wasn't much debate. There was an accepted figure that I will note was was a calculated in much the same way that this one was Philip bump of the Washington Post. Thanks so much for being with us. Of course. Government figures show, the.
"george washington university" Discussed on 600 WREC
"On the waters in front of your house. In addition to the mudslides and landslides. Now, you might end up with a shark in your front yard. I'm telling you, right. You think I'm making this up this appeared somewhere Florence now contain sharks? I'm telling you. You wanna tell me this story is not true that this is this is one thing. I silently shuttled the headline here for the bottom of the stack. Hurricane risks include toxic sludge lagoons, a pig manure, I'm telling you, they're getting ready to call this Donald Trump's Katrina. How many times did they after George Bush had his Katrina? How many other Katrina 's did Bush have for the remainder of his term, they're setting this up? Now, there was a story about pig manure and slop during Katrina and the state of Louisiana handed the bunket there were not losers in gobs of pig manure floating around in flood waters in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. They had to debunk the myth this. These are these are predictable things that the media has in their Nexis database. Hurricane hit you go to the next is file database, and you look for stories. It might look good to run on your on just repeat them March. Now contains us a shark being lifted out of the Atlantic Ocean and dumped into the storm because it's so strong. It sucked them in there. And then they're going to be in the waters. Of course, the only water that might contain sharks would be storm surge it isn't going to be raining sharks. And that's the predominant water source in a hurricane is rainfall. Why debunk the rumor now I don't blame these people Houston because what happened is media matters for America got hold of it along with the fact that I supposedly was saying the hurricanes nothing that they're lying about it just to advance climate change. And all these media people what's amazing about this. They read these things outlandish their craze. They never call here. For clarification. Did you really say that it's going to be raining? They never call you. They just rely on a bunch of leftist radical lying, Saxon manure over at media matters. And they run whatever they say there. Throughout the drive by media. But even with this. We are not finished. Now, we go to the hurricane in Puerto Rico because the drive by media is doing everything it can to say that Donald Trump. Is complicit in. That's what Donald Trump didn't care. Donald Trump didn't do enough to help people at Donald Trump is out lying about the great American response, by the way. Ours was the only response there was no other assistance in Puerto Rico. But ours. Remember, we we learned that the Rico officials hid hundreds of thousands of bottles of water intended for victims were uncovered recently. That was aid was not distributed. Now, they're running around claiming the Trump is complicit didn't care. The latest is that that that three thousand people died. In the aftermath of hurricane Maria. And Donald Trump is saying that is simply not true three thousand people didn't die. And so here from political Donald Trump without evidence says three thousand people did not die in Puerto Rico. And Furthermore that the Democrats are making it up. President Trump on Thursday accused Democrats without evidence of inflating the three thousand person death count from last year's hurricanes and principle Rico in order to make him look bad. Trump tweeted three thousand people did not die the two hurricanes hit Puerto Rico when I left the island after the storm hit they had anywhere from six to eighteen people dead as time went by. It didn't go up by much longtime later they start to report really large numbers like three thousand where did the three thousand number come from researchers at George Washington University. Researchers at George Washington University determined. Last month at hurricane Maria along resulted in two thousand nine hundred seventy five excess deaths in Puerto Rico. This the media except without challenge. The media doesn't say George Washington University without evidence determined last month at hurricane Maria resulted in twenty nine hundred seventy five deaths. But when Trump. Disputes it. They say Donald Trump without evidence says three thousand people died, do you know that researchers at George Washington University did not go down there and count bobby's. George Washington University, eight Louis, no. Washington University of St Louis, maybe I don't know to be wherever it is. They're finding was not the result of a death toll accounting. Nobody researcher or otherwise from George Washington University went the purdah Rico to count bodies on the ground in the morgue or wherever instead, you know, what they did they used a public health study that compared mortality in the six months following the storm with the number of deaths that would have been expected if the storm had not yet, they use the computer model. Researchers at George Washington University reached their conclusion via computer model and the way they did it. They did a study that compared death in the six months following the storm with the number of deaths that would have been expected if it had not hit. And they come out magically with a number of two thousand nine hundred seventy five excess deaths that nobody chronicled nobody reported. Nobody counted. There are no bodies to confirm this. The media's effort. To prove this was frustrated by several factors. First experts praised the federal government's response to hurricane Maria at first for the Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello himself praised the US response. The president the administration every time we've asked them to execute. They've executed quickly. He said in September two thousand seventeen. But Trump's critics have not given up. They have attempted to cite several new studies created new estimates of the real death toll of hurricane. So here you have a computer model estimating this based on that estimate. Nobody has seen anybody's George Washington University reports it three thousand destined media falls right in line to report without checking without confirming just believing it because it's a bunch of academic saying so Trump says it's not possible only eighteen people died when I left there. That's why they sing excess deaths. Excess deaths are not necessarily related the storm. They just happened after the storm could be related might not be. It's just a bogus research study to go along with the fake news that Trump and the US didn't care about Puerto Rico 'cause they're people of color because Trump is racist. And all that and didn't do anything to help the island. They're just lying through their teeth. They're making it up as they go. The only thing different is that we have a president who's pushing back against it. When they lie about him. And that's what they can't digest. How dare he? How dare he refute? What we allege? How dare he is? So he becomes the target. He becomes the one. Who's insane? But how about reporting three thousand deaths when you don't have the bodies when you have even been there to count the bodies to find the bodies, the look at the graves or whatever. You just use your computer model that is an estimate of previous estimates. Yeah. This could be if that happened. But if that didn't happen this would have happened. But if neither of those happened than the third alternative would be this. If these two things happened. Did anybody go there to find out? What did happen? No, all we know is that Trump sucks and Trump doesn't care and Trump didn't do anything in American he'll Puerto Rico, and so three thousand people died, and that is your new story. And that's why Trump is pushing back against it. If three thousand people have died we'd have been hearing about it long before the past few weeks or so back into the second one.
"george washington university" Discussed on KNSS
"Front of your house in addition to the mudslides and landslides. Now, you might end up with a shark in your front yard. I'm telling you, right. You think I'm making this up this appeared somewhere Florence now contain sharks? I'm telling you. You wanna tell me this story is not true that this is this is one thing. I saw the headline at the bottom of the stack. Hurricane risks include toxic sludge lagoons pig manure, I'm telling you, they're getting ready to call this Donald Trump's Katrina. How many times did they after George Bush had his Katrina? How many other Katrina did Bush have for the remainder of his term? They're setting this up. Now, there was a story about pig manure and slop during Katrina and the state of Louisiana had to debunk it. There were not hoosiers in gobs of pig manure floating around in flood waters. In Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. Debunk the myth this. These are these are predictable things that the media has in their Nexis database. Hurricane hit you go to the next file database, and you look for stories. It might look good to run on your on just repeat them March. Now contains Chesa sharks are being lifted out of the Atlantic Ocean and dumped into the storm because it's so strong it sucked on them in there. And then they're going to be in the waters. Of course, the only water that might contain sharks would be storm surge it isn't going to be raining sharks. And that's the predominant water source in a hurricane is rainfall. Why debunk the rumor now I don't blame these people Houston because what happened is media matters for America got hold of it along with the fact that I supposedly was saying to hurricanes nothing that they're lying about it just to advance climate change. And all these media people what's amazing about this. They read these things are outlandish. They're crazed. They never call here for clarification. Did you really say that it's going to be waning? They never call here. They just rely on a bunch of leftist radical lying, Saxon manure over at media matters. And they run whatever they say they're throughout the drive by media. But even when this we are not finished. Now, we go to the hurricane in Puerto Rico because the drive by media is doing everything it can to say that Donald Trump. Is complicit in. That's what Donald Trump didn't care. Donald Trump didn't do enough to help people at Donald Trump is out lying about the great American response, by the way. Ours was the only response there was no other assistance in Puerto Rico. But ours. Remember, we we learned that Prato. Rico officials hid hundreds of thousands of bottles of water intended for victims were uncovered recently. That was aid was not distributed. Now, they're running around claiming that Trump is complicit didn't care. The latest is that that that three thousand people died. In the aftermath of hurricane Maria. And Donald Trump is saying that is simply not true three thousand people didn't die. And so here from political Donald Trump without evidence says three thousand people did not die in Puerto Rico. And Furthermore that the Democrats are making it up. President Trump on Thursday accused Democrats without evidence of inflating the three thousand person death count from last year's hurricanes and principle Rico in order to make him look bad. Trump tweeted three thousand people did not die the two hurricanes hit Puerto Rico when I left the island after the storm hit they had anywhere from six to eighteen people dead as time went by. It didn't go up by much longtime later they start to report really large numbers like three thousand where did the three thousand number come from researchers at George Washington University. Researchers at George Washington University determined. Last month at hurricane Maria along resulted in two thousand nine hundred seventy five excess deaths in Puerto Rico. This the media except without challenge. The media doesn't say George Washington University without evidence determined last month at hurricane Maria resulted in twenty nine hundred seventy five doubts, but when Trump. Disputes it. They say Donald Trump without evidence since three thousand people didn't die. Do you know that researchers at George Washington University did not go down there and count bobby's? George Washington University eight Lois. No. Washington University of St Louis, maybe I don't know to be wherever it is. They're finding was not the result of a death toll accounting. Nobody researcher or otherwise from George Washington University went to Puerto Rico to count bodies on the ground in the mortgage, or wherever instead, you know, what they did they used a public health study that compared mortality in the six months following the storm with the number of deaths that would have been expected if the storm had not yet, they used a computer model. Researchers at George Washington University reached their conclusion via a computer model and the way they did it. They did a study that compared death in the six months following the storm with the number of deaths that would have been expected if it had not hit. And they come out magically with a number of two thousand nine hundred seventy excess deaths that nobody chronicled nobody reported. Nobody counted. There are no bodies to confirm this. The media's effort. To prove this was frustrated by several factors. First experts praised the federal government's response to hurricane Maria at first for the Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello himself praise. The US response the president the administration every time we've asked them to execute. They've executed quickly. He said in September two thousand seventeen. But Trump's critics have not given up. They have attempted to cite several new studies created new estimates of the real death toll of hurricane. So here you have a computer model estimating this based on that estimate. Nobody has seen anybody's George Washington University reports it three thousand the media falls right in line to report without checking without confirming just believing it because it's a bunch of academic saying so Trump says it's not possible only eighteen people died when I left there. That's why they sing excess deaths. Excess deaths are not necessarily related the storm. They just happened after the storm could be related might not be. It's just a bogus research study to go along with the fake news that Trump and the US didn't care about Puerto Rico 'cause they're people of color because Trump is racist. And all that and didn't do anything to help the island. They're just lying through their teeth. They're making it up as they go. The only thing different is that we have a president who's pushing back against it. When they lie about him. And that's what they can't digest. How dare he? How dare he refute? What we allege? How dare he? And so he becomes the target. He becomes the one. Who's insane? But how about reporting three thousand deaths when you don't have the bodies when you haven't even been there to count the bodies to find the bodies look at the graves or whatever. You just use your computer model that is an estimate of previous estimates. Yeah. This could be if that happened. But if that didn't happen this would have happened. But if neither of those happened than the third alternative would be this. If these things happen. Well, did anybody go there to find out? What did happen? No, all we know is that Trump sucks and Trump doesn't care and Trump didn't do anything in America didn't help Rico, and so three thousand people died, and that is your story. And that's why Trump is pushing back against it. If three thousand people have died we'd have been hearing about it long before the past few weeks or so back into the second one.
"george washington university" Discussed on KTLK 1130 AM
"Superhero film ever and the fifth best earning domestic release overall just twentyone million behind two thousand fifteen jurassic world sherlock gnomes had a soso debut starting it's run with ten point six million over the weekend that's less than half the opening gross of its twenty eleven predecessor but with a decent v plus cinema score from audiences the studio hopes so word of mouth and spring break business will boost its fortunes tomb raider was right behind and with ten point four million giving it a ten day total of forty one million and a wrinkle in time at at eight million over the weekend boosting its total to seventy three million so far and that's your weekend box office review on iheart glenn beck bill o'reilly good friday he's trying to be good let it is friday we were just talking about george washington university in the students that are that are in college and and bill was talking about how they were stupid and i i believe they are unchanged and i think you know the the tenure was meant so you could say crazy radical things and how those radical things have have changed over the years but you can't say radical things now you can only say you can only say jesus was a drag king and get away with it you cannot say that is post modernist bullcrap and here's why you can't have the other side you can only challenge one direction and so if you are unchanged how do you get out of that bill.
"george washington university" Discussed on BizTalk Radio
"And he's been a guest on my show several times he's a wonderful guys a terrific gifts these extremely smart mv notice however size the word extremely and so always thoroughly other than the either the gulf fox contributor who is uh uh a top lawyer inferred from george washington university talking about some smart guys and napolitano was come out with a concern which could be grounds for impeachment than i try not to elaborate on on these outcomes because i don't have the legal expertise to do it but if this is vis uh hope a message regarding the email about trump not tara uh getting involved in in in responding to what was a meeting at the white house with the russian investigator and napolitano expressed concern about that and uh you know instead of going through all the pros and cons of that all we have to lose weight uh you just a few hours and we'll get a response on one where we are with this case and trump is he believes the document will validate his concerns paul ryan uh charge that the democrats were out for political gain i mean is there any dispute over that saying the purpose of the memo is to reveal whether there has been abuses of surveillance laws and he's saying this memo is in an indictment of the fbi and the department of justice it is not impugn knee muller investigation and a lot of.
"george washington university" Discussed on WCPT 820
"George washington university and a clinician an expert on drug pricing and specifically on antibiotics dr powers thanks for joining us i would win so tell us a little bit about your work on antibiotics i think a lot of people have heard about antibiotic resistance that there is this risk that antibiotics are going to stop working use the you know mainstream news articles of that nature can you dive into the issue a little bit deeper and tell us how the pharmaceutical industry plays in this space sure um but the the issue with antibiotics in there for development than a 1930's and 1940s has always been this issue that they can lose their effectiveness over time and that uh in terms of antibiotic resistance and in fact one penicillin was introduced in the 1940s by the 1950s almost ninety eight percent of staphylococcus aureus which is the common organism the close of the skin infections had become resistant to it having said that though was a flip side to that discussion for instance i'm group a streptococcus i wish close strep throat have remained sensitive to penicillin for the last eight years so it's very difficult to predict scene which organisms resistance might develop and how fast that might zedillo any importance point to take out of this is that the vouch the majority of people don't have an antibiotic through this effective for them so of course it makes sense to try to develop drugs that are better for both current and future patients um and that's what we like to do not just antibiotics living any she'll be like to develop their cancer better drugstore heart disease at cetera so um but what's happened here in in animal products that instead of developing drugs that are better for current patients yet slipped into a paradigm based on try to incentivize the drug industry where the trials are almost universally designed to allow the new drugs to be worse than a drug that you can get already that's effective in patients that already have effective option and that's something that's not done in in other therapy luke area when those kinds of trials are done it's usually a trade off so for instance if you are giving an anticoagulant truck into thin somebody's.
"george washington university" Discussed on KMJ NOW
"To show moving right along it coming up on this hour little bit later i have a particular story that so a little unsavory and if you have children in the car you may want to check out for a bit i'll give you fair warning on top of the hour you hear that word that box b u c k s box like the big bucks daddy word box bucks bought spots text that word immediately to five sue six eight two five to six eight two six two five eight two there we go you know what to do and you may come up with a thousand dollars in the new forte they buracam j uh did not sleep well last night i'm really dragging and i hate that but when try livened up right now this is great great audio thanks to my producer michael re to put this together president trump's new comprehensive tax reform proposal was just lauded with praise by the students that george universe a george washington george washington university spinning out by the the kicker here his they were told it didn't belong trump it belongs to bernie sanders so the campus reform reporter whose name is cavite phillips ask the member of george washington university students what they thought about president trump's reform proposal and they were bu bu but remember they're thinking it's bernie sanders so let us eavesdrop on some of these responses to this most brilliant tax reform plan by bernie but it's not really by bernie it's by donald roll it this week donald trump release his new tax plan which was immediately shot down by his political opponent it's on the left but what what those same people think if they were told that tax plan was actually bernie sanders plan do they were george washington university in washington dc find out more your thoughts on trump's tax and he saw it all it's very its grip better for that macarthur under analysis very much a horrible for the middle class especially lower class me mean at idea this felli not the most efficient nor beneficial to the general populace benny nagging so bernie sanders came out with his plan some people conduct compassionate alternative so we're getting opinions on barneys plan first one of bernie sanders plans is to enhance the child tax credit which is tax money given him back to families when they have children what he think it up.
"george washington university" Discussed on BizTalk Radio
"In effect exhibited from discussing their campaigns with anyone this would this would criminalise every single normal activity by every candidate with voters you can't even begin to count the number of times that american politicians talk when foreign commentaries up public figures of political figures a member of the press in vice versa you can't keep track of it so you're gonna pick on someone would no political experience with no political sophistication who got baited into this meeting because he got all excited thinking was going to have something to show and now you're gonna pick on him and say that he committed treason it's ongoing it's just unbelievable and who's out there as a watchdog except judicial watching jagr's secolo who does a great job who's gonna be out there to speak up on their behalf well i'll tell you the tool with him one of them is alan dershowitz and the other one is jeffrey from george washington university both liberal turley jonathan turley both of them are actually very liberal democrats who have their heads screwed on the right way how can we expect people like wide in molten to grasp the absurdity of criminalising and every day candidate because they're so jaded in their hatred that they if god in what the meaning of objectivity use when i look at objectivity i can look at our number republicans like john cornered of taxes uh mansion on west virginia i mean if they're us some out here as i said many times on this show i can't think of many democrats i can mention but politics is or rotten business and i'm thinking in a way i mean you you have to lawyers standards you have to compromise with the truth if you become a political animal when i look at sean spicer in a look at sarah huckabee sanders working for a very tough guy donald trump having to get up there defend with trump tells them to say not necessarily the truth i wouldn't want to edge job honestly if i got a call soon suit taylor we found out how you how are you you've done you.
"george washington university" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"He's three shots back with a bloomberg sports update pomp frank garrity this is a closer look with arthur levitt arthur levitt is a former chairman of the us securities and exchange commission of bloomberg lp board member a senior adviser to the promontory financial group and a policy adviser to goldman sachs this week we continue our closer look that dr hamad try at coa university professor had professor of international affairs at george washington university he's the author of more than thirty books his most recent being avoiding war with china who nineteen ninety he founded the communitarian network a not for profit non partisan organization dedicated to shoring up the moral social and political founder asians of society he's currently the director of the institute for 'communautarian policy studies at george washington university ty you row we need to differentiate between trump the ultraconservative and trump of democracy wrecker why do you call on a democracy wrecker and for months later has your opinion changed noted renata to do very dear corker opec your he is poorer all right primary damper you work out stubs you go out target party he word for kirk candidate who use personality to greater law laura poitras clear american courtroom by attacking departed by establishment of his party by open a republican congress have you heard here are very difficult for over pro cursor comper connecticut into the matter out card denominated and then of course venue in the judge he had a by any over there on a day at the dakota no democracy that curb avoiding private hearing from here talking to pray the it quoted a barbeque dramatically the order functioning democracy we need give concrete incurred to be absorb and do do you think a a coalition court for it occurs and we agreed to work out our differences all do that bye bye come on either way the quicker the railroad any part of democracy batir who coverings had no mclaughlin pro trump treats that qatar is a bad after one day and the next day tillerson is asking saudi arabia egypt to ease their a blockade if qatar later later the same day trump voiced his support for the blockade is the strategy or is the chess total madness dade no horrific betting but it be no hiv could you can on the government to her e even your it could be mistaken do what it takes.