20 Episode results for "Kate Shaw"

Over The Hill

Start Here

24:35 min | 4 months ago

Over The Hill

"It's Monday April. Thirteenth and good news isn't quite what I'd call it. You start here. Is The American? Death Toll Soars past twenty thousand. The hardest hit state. Say yes over. Nineteen is losing momentum. The APEX APEX TO PLATEAU TO. How much longer will shutdown continue? We'll talk about official considering. The consensus came in February. Who WARNINGS DIDN'T COME UNTIL MARCH? They were warning the president adviser something needs to be done. The president was continuing business as usual. We'll walk you through the new timeline. That could still be shaping our national response and it's a free country unless there's a pandemic the bottom line is that government has a lot of power during a public health. Emergency from Easter Sunday to a stalled bus plan were civil liberties fit into a crisis from ABC News. This is start here. I'm Brad milkey yesterday. Perhaps the world's most high-profile Kobe nineteen patient returned home from the hospital. I WANNA pay my thanks to the OTTILIA. Doctors leaders in their fields men and women but several of them for some reason called Nick who took some crucial decisions a few days ago which I will be grateful for the rest of my life in this video address to the nation. Boris Johnson the UK. Prime Minister is clearly shaken. Because we've talked about how this virus can attack anyone on earth and with no vaccine minimal research. It can quickly make anybody devolve. Here is living proof. Nhs has saved my life question and while he recovers he's going to receive nothing but well wishes from everyone around the world that's a given but within his own nation. He's also about to witness an intense debate over what to do next. Because Corona virus cases in Britain several nations seem to have started to slow. But even if that's true what do you do next? Italy says it's remaining on virtual lockdown through the beginning of May Spain on the other hand which became nearly as bad. He's already signaling. It'll start loosening restrictions and I bring this up because the US is in a very very similar situation. These are the conversations you're about to start hearing starting this week because some of our hardest hit areas say with the death tolls still climbing unimaginably. Hi We're on track to force that corona virus curve downward but when let's start this morning with ABC's? Trevor all is based in New York and Trevor and this point New York officials sound kinda similar to federal officials. Yeah they really do Brad. I mean I think it's fair to say that in just about every metric that we're measuring cove in nineteen right now in terms of cases in terms of hospitalizations in terms of deaths right. Now we're outpacing those projections which were admittedly very grim. The minimum number one hundred thousand lives I think will be substantially under that number. It has been what has seemed to be like good news both nationwide and especially where we are in New York. That's the so-called flattening of the curve. The PECs isn't just an apex it's a plateau we've seen the rate of hospitalizations here in New York. Drop we've seen deaths level off as well and we're seeing what appears to be for possibly the first time in this covert nine Kane crisis. Perhaps some hope. The death toll today is lower than it has been in six days then. That's not just in New York too. You know we. Illiinois has seen its lowest death count. We saw Michigan. It's number of positive. Cases is going down a little bit Louisiana which was another troublespot. Their hospitalizations are slowing too. So all of those are very positive signs as we're moving forward but again we have to stress and health officials continue to stress that because we are flattening the curve. The emphasis is in the word flattening. It just means it's not going up anymore or for the time being. It's not going up. It's not going back down to zero so even though this weekend appeared to be a weekend of good news in terms of covert nineteen in New York. Fifteen hundred New Yorkers died and that's something that we've been dealing with for for quite some time too so we're seeing a lot of different locations leveling off right now. This is not something that is totally going away but it is enough that the drumbeat of people who want to reopen the country or at least get that started Are Starting to get a little bit louder. Okay so if it's a we don't know if it's the apex because that means it's going to go down it's at least a plateau right. It's at least flattening out. What are the variables? Trevor like? Wh what are researchers worried about? That would make this potentially spike up again. Well there's a few different variables that we know. They're concerned with the one fact. Is that the United States has been treating this in a piecemeal fashion. I will be adding to my New York Executive Order We will be Requiring the same for travelers from New Orleans Louisiana and other parts of Louisiana To self isolate for fourteen days every single state has had its own. Stay at home. Orders has had its own testing policies in rural areas where people are more spaced out. The virus could just be taking more time. We also know that testing has been scarce and very limited. And so we have these numbers of how many people have tested positive for covert nineteen but there could be many multitudes more than that who actually have it who could continue to be spreading the virus. The concern is if you start to lift all these restrictions you let people go about their business or if maybe you don't lift the restrictions but start to feel more lax. They stop washing their hands frequently. They go out to the store more. Start hanging out with friends you could see. That spread ratchet up as quickly as we've seen at flatten and then we're in a case where we're already having. Our hospitals inundated. Were already having funeral homes in New York who say they have to turn people away because there are too many dead bodies upside down. We've never seen anything like this. America's systems are already at the Red Line Brad and if we get more cases more deaths than we're already seeing it really could blow the whole system okay but when we talk about that reopening things. Trevor it's not like the the CDC Dr Anthony not talking about like. Let's STOP WASHING OUR HANDS RIGHT. So so what are the restrictions that we potentially lose him? Like what would this look like? And when would it happen? Yeah and that is a very good point because Dr found she made a point to say it is not going to be a light. Switch that we say okay. It is now June July. Or WHATEVER CLICK. The The the light switch goes back on this is going to be done and what he calls rolling re entry in for an idea of what we might see. We know that. For example Spain today is going to be allowing some industries to go back to work. Construction manufacturing a few areas where people can begin to leave. What's been locked down for several weeks now? And we know that those companies if they're bringing their workers back half to provide protective equipment. So that is if the United States starts to ease off on these restrictions we might see something similar in that capacity but there is a very big difference Brad between letting some people back to work and having life go entirely back to normal because just to put it in perspective we. This weekend was a weekend of good news. Statistically for New York and also this weekend the mayor of New York City Bill De Blasio announced that school was still going to be close to the rest of the academic year which goes until June twenty six. You say the schools are closed through June. You're effectively saying businesses are closed through June. Because you can't put the restart the economy Fully without restarting schools schools are also provide Not just education. But they're also many ways child care for people can then go to work. It just goes to show Brad that even if some people start to get to go back to work or some industries begin to open up. We have quite a ways to go before. America is back to normal. Yeah and I was GonNa say we look at those grass those projections? They were showing if cases. They're not like symmetrical. It's not like a really quicken down really quick just tapered off slower and slower a trevor. All thanks for putting in perspective for us. Thank you bread when we continue to look forward at saving future lives. There's also a question of whether lives are endangered now. That never should have been in the first place. Could we have stop this earlier? And whose call was that. Will this weekend. The New York Times put out an explosive article claiming to have obtained e-mails between officials as this crisis ramped up. This was not back in December when we were still vetting. Information in China is not March when the government finally did social distancing recommendations into effect. This was that in-between time. Those crucial Luntz in January and February. Abc Senior editorial producer. Johnson and John. Can you just walk us through? According to the New York Times reporting. What did the president know? And what did he do about it? Because the White House responded to all this by saying he took bold action to protect Americans. Will he did Brad? I mean the president had a good start out of the gate because he did shutdown travel between the United States in China. President trump barring for nationals who pose a transmission risk from entering the country in a fat a temporary ban on nearly all Chinese travelers. That squared the good kind of took a break if you will because the president did not do much right away as it turns with the United States as far as social distancing as far as giving guidance That Americans needed to remain safe enough. Slow the spread of Cova Nineteen. What we've learned in the New York. Times is tick tock on this. Frankly at this point is going to be the record for right now and the administration not push back is that they were multiple examples of trump administration officials going to their colleagues other departments and the President himself saying we have a problem. Here sources tell. Abc News as far back as late November US intelligence officials warned up a crisis over the next month. Briefings included the National Security Council at the White House by early January the contagion sweeping through China within the president security breath so alex as our who was the original head of the Kobe. Response on behalf of the White House He's the secretary of Health and Human Services the first case of the deadly corona virus. Making its way to the. Us apparently stepped in in late. January flagging the alarm saying guys. We have a problem here. You're not realizing this. This is an issue. You need to take this seriously. Others in the administration were doing the same. But it wasn't until the White House brought on Deborah burks who's now the coordinator of the White House Task Force on Corona Virus. Response that the president seemed to take things more seriously. We're going to see that people are GonNa be a symptomatic carriers spreading spreading the virus turning the page to February. The health officials really tried to step up to the plate. Here they were warning the president and advisor something needed to be done here in the US. At least eleven cases five confirmed justice weekend. President though was continuing business as usual the virus. They're working hard. Looks like by April. You know in theory when it gets a little warmer miraculously goes away. Hope that's true. He took a quick trip over to India. You might remember Brad for that Mega Rally. He did that. He was so excited for the whole back across the United States the CDC warning the corona virus will spread saying it's not a matter of if but when L. The officials actually started sounding the alarm. This was a problem so dissing me to happen. An February Twenty First Corona Virus Task Force meeting attended by Vouch E. HHS Secretary Alex as czar. It was decided they would do need to move toward aggressive. Social distancing president will those efforts I. I don't think it's inevitable. I think that there's a chance that it could get worse. As a chance it could get fairly substantially worse but Nothing's inevitable but the president did not announce those measures for more than three weeks during that time the number of known. Us Corona virus cases surging from fifteen to over four thousand but then upon returning home building that team around him. Getting advisors like Deborah Books and Anthony found. She telling him we need to start doing this. Researchers now believe covert nineteen has been spreading in Washington. State for some six weeks wasn't until the President Hitt March. I mean again. This is months after the warning started in Rhode Island. High School is shut down for the week to people testing positive for the virus there after returning from a school trip to Italy for the president started. Take this seriously and now of course the New York Times painted. Perhaps all of this was too late yet is reporting basically says the scientists had this fundamental problem. Because they're seeing the cases getting spread a symptomatically in China. Means anyone can have it whether you know it or not. And that's when they go. Oh shoot like social distancing. That might be the only option. We can't quarantine sick people. Then they had to convince the president to that though knowing everyday that ticked by would just pump up this curve exponentially higher and yet you're saying weeks went by here. Were nothing happened because of power dynamics absolutely and I think you're seeing that right now in the task force itself look the Task Force as I mentioned earlier was supposed to be headed by Alex as are the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I think it's perhaps the most complicated job that we having government and I want him to be able to focus on that and Mike is really good at it. They're gonNA work together. They're going to work very closely together. He's not a favourite within the trump administration's and the President Installs. Mike Pence is vice. President in charge of as I am also told this has now become the top priority at the White House and that the president has brought in jared Kushner son-in-law when it starts to look like this is not under control likely seen time and time again jared Kushner steps up to the plate. He starts to build a pseudo task force. He has people in the Department of Health and Human Services doing his bidding. He himself takes a trip to FEMA when that agency steps into play here and tries to figure out what's going on there's such a distrust amongst aids within this administration the other remember here to Brad is that you know for Donald Trump. It's hard for him. Like many Americans frankly to to grasp the reality of what's happened here right. I think until it's affected somebody personally. It's hard to recognize and he went to the hospital and a day later. He's in a coma. How's he doing so? He's in a coma he's unconscious. Abc News has learned that New York. Real estate mogul and longtime friend of President Trump Stanley. Chiro has died from corona virus complications. In this case it was the first hand account of someone that had it. It was the visuals of his neighborhood that he had grown up in being impacted. I've been watching that. For the last week. On television bodybags all over and then it was so many officials piling on and on and on their finally cracked the president to take this seriously. Yeah there's this fascinating scene painted in this reporting we're scientists are basically saying we're GONNA get together. We're going to present our case for social distancing to the president when he gets home from India but just before his flight takes off a CDC. Dr Lays out that case publicly the stock market plummets. Suddenly the president was much more angry much more difficult to convince and it was another two weeks before the CDC finally started discouraging and shakes and mass gatherings to all of us. Johnson Tucci. Thank you thank you Brad. Next time on start here. You probably should wear a mask on the bus. But can you be forced to Is there something preventing you from achieving? Your goals is work related stress or insomnia slowing you down better help. Online counseling securely connects you with professional licensed counselor log into your account anytime to easily schedule video or phone sessions and securely exchange unlimited messages with your counselor. It's therapy two point. Oh support wherever you are whenever it's convenient and start here listeners. Get ten percent off their first month of better help with the code here star. Now go to better help DOT COM SLASH HERE. Every week wonders podcast business. Wars digs deep into some of the greatest. Corporate rivalries of all time think facebook vs snapchat or Amazon versus Walmart in their new season starbucks versus Dunkin. They follow these to Java giants in a war that started brewing in the nineteen fifties and is now hotter than ever coffees one hundred billion dollar plus global industry with these two duke it out at the top but their battle is about more than coffee to find out more subscribed to business wars on apple podcasts. Spotify OR WHEREVER. You're listening right now questions are going to continue about when do return to work. When do we continue life as quote unquote normal? In the meantime we're GONNA continue to listen to the CDC for the recommendations but remember in many areas. These aren't recommendations who we're going to record license plates and provide it to local health departments. Local health departments are going to come to your door with an order for you to be quarantined for fourteen days this weekend to state. Local leaders continue to grapple with how to handle church services in some areas that were frowned upon in others. Large gatherings were up illegal but we also saw new orders go into effect that brought immediate questions about what should be mandatory and who gets to decide what's mandatory Jersey Governor Murphy ordering customers to wear masks inside. All stores and supermarkets remember the federal government recommends. You wear a face covering now. When you're around other people just to limit how far your coughs and your sneezes and the those droplets when you pop your. Ps how far they can go well. In some areas some businesses this is mandatory and in places like Philadelphia. Got Ugly Fast. Abc News Legal Analyst. Kate Shaw Real quick. Okay Philadelphia said. You gotta wear face masks if you want to be on a city bus. One Guy wasn't wearing a face mask got literally dragged off of it by law enforcement. I mean is that allowed so I think read all of the examples that you just gave including the one about Philadelphia raises really important question. Which is the interaction of the orders that are in effect in most of the country? And they range from the stay at home orders to prohibitions on gatherings to as you said some of these new mask directives sort of the interaction with all of those with individual liberties things like religious freedom. Justice Walker called the mayor's call for churches to not allow drive in services quote stunning and unconstitutional. The right to travel freely the right to dress the way you please maybe including not wearing a mask the right to buy a gun the right to terminate a pregnancy. The Attorney General tweeted today quote. No one is exempt from the governor's executive order including abortion providers. And I think that each of these issues raises some distinct questions but the bottom line is that government has a lot of power during a public health. Emergency to make rules. That just wouldn't fly in ordinary times so can. Local governments mandate the wearing of masks on under certain circumstances. Probably yes but does that mean that. It's reasonable to forcibly removed from a bus. Somebody not wearing a mask. I think pretty clearly no right. You couldn't say impose a sentence of life in prison for not wearing a mask you also probably can't bodily harm an individual. But what could government do? They could impose fines They can ban entry into particular places an executive order today which directs employers to provide essential workers with a cloth. Surgical face masks and another thing is that they should probably make masks freely available right because of course there are equity issues. And I'm not sure that we've seen that yet. In every city making these guys issuing these kinds of mandates in Philadelphia says it's reviewing that entire policy changing its approach but in other areas. Kate like in New York City Bill. Blasi of the mayor said school is now out through the end of the school year. The Governor Andrew Cuomo said. That's not up to you. I mean forget New York to just across the country. Who should I be listening to as I'm trying to digest these local and state and national guidelines? So I think it's actually a sort of a state by state kind of an issue so under some state constitutions governors have really brought authority justices say lawmakers did not have authority to revoke. The governor's order limiting church congregations to ten people or less in some states. Localities actually have the final word on certain kinds of matters Wisconsin. Democratic governor tried to postpone the election but Republican lawmakers argued elections are essential services. The courts agreed. I will say as a general matter that state and local governments have very broad powers. What are known as Police Powers To do things like act to promote the public health and safety so the action is really with state and local governments as compared to the federal government when it comes to responding to emergencies like this. And you've seen that play out on the ground. Several lawsuits have been filed against state and local governments by churches. Gathering bands aren't being enforced equally in their singling out. Church services in these emergency circumstances courts aren't going to be eager to second guess the judgment of decision-makers but I will say that there's a time limit to that kind of deference right so courts are likely to be pretty deferential when we're talking about turning everything upside down for a matter of days or weeks or really even months. We're just talking about a few months but if this stretches on many months you know even into approaching a year government's not going to be able to sort of have as much leeway as it does now so I think there's a time limit on the kind of blank check. That government has under these emergency circumstances and so much. This authority is predicated on those signing of those emergency declaration state federal and now as of this morning Wyoming joined over the weekend all fifty states plus Washington DC and. Now issued emergency declarations. Kate shop thank you. Thank you Brad and one last thing over the weekend. Lots of Americans noticed something new in their bank accounts a direct deposit for about twelve hundred bucks. These were the first direct payments to Americans as part of this two trillion dollar Kobe. Nineteen stimulus package. I am assuring the American public. They need the money now. What we're GONNA DO is again. If we have your information you'll get it into in within two weeks. He's a positive had more money. If there are multiple family members involved maybe less for people who are making more than seventy five thousand dollars. So if you haven't gotten one of these deposits yet. I really quickly want to let you know how to get that money. I if you filed taxes every year and your refund went straight to your bank account. The last few years you're done. Congrats stopped listening. It'll come you sometime in the next few weeks. I'm Brad Milkey tomorrow next. If you're not sure you're eligible for this. Go to irs.gov right. Now of the first thing you'll see is a button that says get info on economic impact payments. That's what this is going to be called an economic impact payment now if you don't file taxes every year because you make less than is required made your veteran on disability the irs is still going to need your info to send you a cheque right. You can do that on the irs website. Right now remember you do not want to be off the grid not for this. That means you don't get paid last. Say You do file taxes but usually offer that paper check. That's fine and you will still get this payment butt heads up. That is going to take months. So if you're hurting for cash because of all this later this week. The IRS is launching this new portal. Called get my payment will fill out your social security number your address. Your Bank Info. You will be able to get your payment that much faster. That's it. Oh and one of the biggest pieces of advice from the IRS. This week they say please. Please stop calling us the. Anti scam reasons. To by the way because scammers they love telephone they love calling people and they love websites that don't involve Irs.gov so stick to the official stuff. People Start here tomorrow. Hit subscribe if you haven't already. Oh and if you haven't listened to the essentials inside the curb check out our bonus episode from this weekend we will have more these voices more these stories as the bestow on Red Milky. Glad you stuck around see tomorrow

president Brad milkey New York United States CDC ABC News Kate Shaw China Executive Trevor Philadelphia Boris Johnson The New York Times official Kobe America federal government Nhs HHS
The Meaning of Impeachment with Kate Shaw

All In with Chris Hayes

1:00:37 hr | 6 months ago

The Meaning of Impeachment with Kate Shaw

"The places that I thought that the testimony in the last couple of weeks was the most powerful Fiona Hill. Bill Taylor places where everyone seems to agree that this scheme of trying to induce these political investigations and using this White House meeting and military it is leveraged for doing that were corrupt and self interested in placed the president self interest just above the national interest but there are also places where the testimony seems to suggest that they materially hurt America's national interests and that feels like it gets theory close to the core of what the impeachment procedure was designed to target. Hello and welcome to wise happening with me your host Chris Hayes. And so we've got some big news for you with Pod. Listeners you've got this podcast blasting in your ear holes you're thinking yourself. I want to go and see the last live live with pod of the fall tour. Semra eighth at the town hall in New York City Seven. PM with the Great. Tony Kushner. Jeremy Harris talking about spectacle and politics and drama and the drama that we all live in our sort of national psychodrama were trapped in which is like one long Eugene. O.`Neil play that we can't get out of. I WANNA go see that but great news. We have a special deal for you. We've got discounted tickets. TICKETMASTER DOT COM searcher Chris Hayes. For the event there are blue dots. That have a lock on them. If you enter the offer code which is podcast. which is what this is ironically enough? If you enter the offer code podcast you get thirty percent off the listed price so go to ticketmaster DOT COM. Search Chris as the event finals little blue dots with the little insignia on them they have a lock. Click on them. Enter podcast the offer code and you can get thirty percent off listed price. It's IT'S GONNA be Super Awesome really looking forward to it a great way to ring in holiday season here in New York City. Today's guest is the most special guest the most special guest. She's not technically. Are I return guests. So we've had Nicole Hannah. Jones was on the podcast right when we started it and then she was. One of the live with pod discusses when we were in Chicago. We've also had Dale Dale who was an ACL. You lawyer on twice just to sort of do a kind of like factual follow up. Because he was on to talk about a case. That was moving through the court so we had him to come back to talk about but kate is our first sort of normal. Repeat in Studio guests and you could probably already know because you've read the description that the Kate I'm talking to is the love of my life life my spouse my life partner the mother of my children the dope est the greatest the most brilliant. Kate Shah tiffany shaking your head as a proxy proxy for Kate who had were the same. And you'll hear her disclaim all my a few surprise of her but I will say this. We are constantly situation book. People talk about impeachment and impeachment is a thing that doesn't happen that often it's only happened. There's only been two formal impeachment votes in the history of the country. Of course there's Nixon to where there was an inquiry and never got to vote so this is the fourth time that we've been sort of this far along in the process and because it hasn't happened often and there's not a lot of people with like real granular expertise in the various areas of law. That are necessary. It's actually I find kind of hard to book. Impeachment guests like we have a sort of small group of people that I feel. Really know this stuff and you'll caccia just wrote a book on it and Elizabeth Holtzman. Has This really unique perspective. Because she was on the Judiciary Committee that brought up the articles of impeachment for Richard Nixon. And there's other folks. We talked to who are all legal minds but I keep having the thought that like. I would like to talk about it and I'm not the only when it feels this way. She's a contributor on the networks. ABC She has been on Good Morning America and this week and she's been doing their live network coverage when they do the actual impeachment hearings on ABC's network coverage. So you know. Kate just got this really incredible mix of experience where she clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice. John Paul Stevens she served as a White House. Associate White House counsel in the Obama Administration. She was working in some ways with stuff. They're doing congress in terms of judicial nominations. That was one of the the area that she worked on. She then became a constitutional law scholar. She has written about presidential speech presidential intent. She's got a new article that she's just finishing up. It's about impeachment presidential impeachment and and presidential speech. Can you basically impeach your president for things he says. Are there things the president can say it. Rise to level of high crimes and misdemeanors so because she has this sort of incredible all three hundred sixty degree view of history of the law. The legal theory the practice the different disputes between the branches. She's just a perfect person to talk to you about this so oh I got her back in the studio and we're we basically talk about where we are right now with the impeachment inquiry the various kind of legal questions arises the unsettled legal questions questions. A kind of fascinating constitutional practice that's embodied in these standoffs between the branches. And what those mean what it means for constitutional structure and self-governance. We got to all of that and She's also got a great voice among her many many many many talents so and I should should note that if you like this conversation. Kate actually hosts a podcast. It's called strict scrutiny. which you can find wherever your podcasts? She hosts it along with three other women who are lawyers and legal experts and they talk about the courts particularly a spring court. It comes out every week. It's great I listen to it because I learned a lot from it. It sort of perfectly pitched at my level of understanding which is sophisticated but not like intimidatingly technical so checkout strict scrutiny. Take and without further ado me and my wife chopping it up all right so this big the first actual repeat guest in studio one only Keisha who. I've just done an intro about which you told me you're not in disclaimed like you did the last time. Tell me you're gonna be reasonable reasonable but the actual reality of the situation is that you're doing all this commentary for for ABC. You see you've been doing the live hearings on network television. You've been at the table discussing it. You have this great. PODCAST called strict scrutiny. Which is about the law and the courts and we talk a lot about the stuff so you're at the even if we weren't married if I didn't love you madly as I do and you weren't a mother my children and life life partner in an objective sense? I've been wanting to talk to you on the pod about all this stuff so maybe just start at the most basic thing which is like you have the law review article. Actually that you've been working on for while about impeachment and it is led you to do a lot of reading about the trajectory of the constitution interpretation of what it means and maybe we can just start with like how the founders thought about impeachment wise in the Constitution to begin the constitutional convention. There is definitely an argument. Made that you know is echoed in an argument. That gets me today today. which is we are providing for a presidency with a four year term? Elections are the way to deal with presidential misconduct. And that's not an argument that carries the day right. The opposing camp says there will be times. Elections are simply not enough right to respond to certain kinds of presidential wrongdoing and so we should put some mechanism the constitution that permits the removal of President prior to the termination of the or the completion of the president's term. But so they once they agree that impeachment should be in the constitution. There are all of these questions I about who should even have the power of impeachment. So there's some thought that maybe the Supreme Court should hold the power of impeachment or that a majority Jordy of state legislature should be able to impeach the president. So it's not even clear initially that it's going to be divided between the two houses of Congress but that's basically the structural arrangement that they get to the house will hold the the power of impeachment and then the Senate will hold the power to try impeachments so they kind of get to an agreement that there will be impeachment in the constitution and that that that's kind of the process and I think they also kind of early on decide. The punishment for impeachment will go no further then removal from office and disqualification from future office-holding so put in the stocks upon Tartan. I'm it's you know there. Were you know executions right after impeachments in in England and the framers. Yeah that's usually the way it goes down like in like like you get rid of the tyrant and the tired at the town square right and I think that they thought they were kind of civilizing and domesticating this procedure right and so it is a very tame and gentle procedure compared to the kinds of impeachment that preceded it so of those things get decided and then the big question is okay. So how are we going to define the conduct that would warrant impeachment so so initially. There's a draft that proposes impeachment for malpractice or neglect of duty says a really low bar neglect of duty. Like your your your job. You're not working very hard. You take vacation go to your properties in Florida all the time so you can imagine that's not but of course they reject that so that so that I think is pretty. Broadly understood not to set a high enough bar and so there is a proposal that it'll be treason. Bribery or corruption. Interestingly corruption would be in and there is a standalone basis things might be cleaner if that had been but yes but it will corruption again like a malleable malleable. And it's all these definitional questions wins which you know you. You told me this great line about I've used on the podcast before and I don't even know if it's an actual Yogi Berra quote but like if they moved the first base closer to home there wouldn't be so many close calls. I yeah like whatever the words would be we would be having huge fights about the interpretive category that that signifies absolutely although before they get to high crimes and misdemeanors. They have a couple of other formulations that they consider and one of them is treason. Bribery and maladministration which is sort of similar to this neglect of duty. Just for being the job. I think it's Madison. Who says that would basically mean that the Senate can adjust the president whom it dislikes? Houma disagrees he's right sort of giving the Senate kind of veto over who occupies the presidency. So then George Mason. Who's kind of doing the drafting at this point takes administration? He puts in high crimes and misdemeanors so the final languages and actually initially. It's high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States. And that I think it's pulled out when it's in the committee on style so that's not supposed to be a substantive have changed so maybe that's interesting and important that against the United States is the original conception right that it is not these kinds of crimes and misdemeanors and you know we can talk about what kind of relationship chip. They should bear to ordinary kinds of criminal offenses but that the victim in some deep sense is supposed to be the policy. The United States government As opposed to ordinary crimes have a lot of the time individual victims so treason bribery. Other high crimes and misdemeanors is the final language. They don't invent this language out of whole cloth rated has these English antecedents and it turns out. It's kind of a term of art that had been used from the fourteenth century on in English context right often to to eject government officials so high crimes and misdemeanors was often the term that was used to describe the conduct for right. Like if you're getting rid of an official there's examples where that's the term of art and it means essentially abuse of power right. Yeah I think that's right. Abuse of power abuse of authority self-dealing corruption offenses against the state eight. Oh that is I think kind of encompassed within the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors you know. This is the thing that I've talked about a lot on the show you've talked about it in other contexts. Non My show. Because you won't come on my show but partly curtly contractually and partly. Just you don't WanNA come out. It would be weird tiffany. She told me issues issues like getting stalked by like a CNN booker. And I was like absolutely not like what I know. Absolutely nothing. It'd be like why can't go on another network Anyway this is a point that we made on the show. But I think it's worth reaffirming that there are things that would be violations of the US criminal code like if we found and out the donald trump was in a gift shop and he just likes stole fifty dollars worth of stuff in his suit which like wouldn't be the least plausible. The thing that's ever told me having like I wouldn't be like no way. Maybe I could see that you know violent. It'll be a clear like stealing fifty dollars worth of stuff. Shoplifting that's clearly a criminal. Infraction peed happens to people all the time when owner rider famously. Does that would not be an impeachable offense. Probably it's not a high crime and misdemeanor demeanor because it's even if it's a violation of law criminal it's not an abuse of office and then the flip side is that there are things you can do as president that don't like in a technical sense violate the criminal code of the US government. That would be a misdemeanor right and I think that almost everyone agrees with that basic proposition that impeachable offenses need not be criminal. Oh and that not all crimes are impeachable. So there's just lots of things that violate laws including federal laws that I don't think people believe warrant impeachment and obviously obviously theft traffic offenses these obviously local kinds of offenses typically. But even things like you know certain kinds of tax fraud are probably not grounds for impeachment. Mint I would say like I would say like in my conception of this and this is based on nothing but meat opining which is hilarious but the other new there Let's say that we found out that Donald Trump had committed tax fraud in two thousand fourteen in two thousand fifteen. I think it would actually be. I don't think you should impeach him for that. Honestly like I think depending on the kind of fraud I think that's also true about post-presidential fraud. Honestly like I think it would depend on the kind kind of fraud for having not seen the tax returns. We don't have no idea but I think there could be. The office is the point that I'm trying to make and like even though yeah I think our instinct is a constantly refer back to the criminal code or crimes other people do even in this case of bribery. Extortion that to me. What sort of singularly really important here is in some ways? It's crimes that no one else could do right. Only the president could try to extort Ukraine to manufacturing during his political. I can't do you that as a normal citizen right. So there's this classic little treatise on impeachment from nineteen seventy four that offers a couple of examples of things that are obviously not crimes but that most people would agree should at least I potentially warrant impeachment and things like making a public commitment not to appoint anybody of a particular religion or particular race to public office. He has the power to do that. And there's nothing criminal about it and yet it is antithetical to core constitutional values of equality. Jews cabinet yeah. You could do that because you cannot meet resident Neil. Koch is a great example in this new book that he just published on impeachment that says if the president had his sibling murder his political article opponent brother. Does it. Totally Zona callers on. And then the president is present pardons him now. The president has pardon power so he has the constitutional authority to do that. But I I think that almost everyone would agree that that would warrant impeachment and again so he has these powers he enjoys by virtue of the office and the abuse of those powers in some ways. They don't finally the Criminal Criminal Code because we don't write laws that only that target conduct that only the president and sanguine so that's one of the many reasons I think that focusing too closely on the specific provisions of the Criminal Law is a mistake when asking about impeachment. It's funny too because I feel like these thought experiments on some level there hypotheticals but they're also kind of the conceptual we'll region that we now inhabit all the time. which is you know? During the hearing the retirement embassador ianovich who was a career Foreign Service official who had been dispatched Ukrainian embassador and everyone was saying correctly. The president can hire and fire ambassadors. They can president can recall ambassador absolutely but then my response was right but if it was because she refuse to sleep with him then I mean yes constitutionally could but that would be an abuse of power like you have to have romantic relations with me or I'm recalling you. We would all be like okay. I guess is constitutionally. Has the power to do that. But that's not cool and in some ways it's like everything that fits in this category of like a thing that's unthinkable or thing that like you constitutionally have the power to do but shouldn't or it violate something deep about the trust of the office is the category that we end up having impeachment deal right. Well that's true about presidents presidents right so the impeachment language in the constitution applies to the president vice president and all civil officers of the United States so we have very small set of presidential impeachments in our history and a pretty small set of impeachments overall but the overall says of course larger. So we've impeached Supreme Court justice and a cabinet secretary and actually a senator. Although it's now very much the position that you have to expel senator if you want to object to senator gun in the House not removed in the Senate then expelled him but yeah no. It's one of the president's talking we're talking about how Adam Schiff should be impeached. Everyone's like adult. You can't impeach a member of Congress it was one of the few moments and I was like well you know. He has a tiny bit of a point which is at least the founding generation and made the same mistake. They thought well like yeah. That's how you get rid of an office anyway. So no he's wrong. By the way there's an amazing little snapshot of the Digital Labor in our household were like I have opinions and knowledge. That's that's wild. So they actually did. There was a senator impeached And a cabinet secretary and a bunch of federal judges and so I think there've been something like nineteen impeachments overall. So you know fourteen or fifteen of them have federal judges. A lot of them have engaged in bribery type crimes but they typically get charge as high crimes and misdemeanors but back to your point about why we go so often to the criminal code. So the president can't be criminally charged right. At least that's the sort of largely really settled understanding but judges can and so some of these judges get charged criminally and then impeached. And so the way you described their misconduct tracks. The criminal offense sized raised because they've already been either charged convicted investigated for engaging in this bribery type conduct and so it makes sense that impeachment language would look like the criminal context context language but of course that's not the case presidents so the set of impeachments is a small one man. We've got four impeach an increase of presidents and we've only got two actual impatience happen the first one we did a whole podcast about it with Brenda Wine Apple. Who wrote that book which you and I have both read? And there's a bunch of stuff that's interesting about ended on one. Is that like they have to figure out the procedure. They have to figure out like they're doing all of it for the first time. There's very little for them to work off of for precedent. Even though there's been other impeachments there hasn't been a president but but there's one article of impeachment. That is the most interesting to me that gets the least historical attention. I think which is what you've been sort of writing about. Yeah so I really don't feel like going to hijack this podcast is like a little advertisement for my law review article. No yeah that's what you're here for but so right so I'm writing this Article Real Division. Promotion uh-huh flushing. I'm writing this article about the role of speech in previous impeachment efforts so I started just kind of reading about impeachment history over the summer or which is obviously fortuitous. Because I'm pretty steep at least the secondary literature and I'm not a historian so I've read someone up all of the primary sources but I was just curious how the Congress's that have considered and then actually taken steps impeach. Previous presidents have thought about the president's speech and the role of presidential speech in those impeachment effort so they Andrew Johnson impeachment. Effort was on its surface largely about in the articles focused on Johnson's violation of the statute called the tenure of office act which required him. MM to obtain Senate consent before firing cabinet secretary so he in violation of the statute fired. His worst secretary who he had inherited from. Lincoln had been Lincoln's War Secretary Edwin Stanton and so ten of the twelve articles against Andrew. Johnson really focus on that violation but then two of them and in particular. The tenth article are totally different and the tenth article is really about Johnson's public speeches and in particular his attacks in public on Congress is accused of these intemperate harangues that are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming the Chief Magistrate of the United States in article ten intemperate harangues the peace. Tim for intemperate harangues literally. They did Among other things so one of Oh I think kind of deep points that Brenda wine making this book. The teacher's is the conduct described in article. Ten and article eleven and so ten is about his public speech in eleven is really kind kind of more broadly about his kind of thwarting of reconstruction right. That's a little bit more explicit. An article eleven but that those are the things he was really impeached for that. The tenure of office act was an excuse abuse and it was an error in misstep on the part of the Republican Congress to try to sort of execute this narrow and formalistic legalistic impeachment meant rather than sort of forthrightly. Tell the country why they believe Johnson was unfit to remain in office. But there are glimpses of maybe the true motivations nations that you can sort of find an article ten and eleven and ten is really the thing I focus on in that part of and some of the speech I mean just to be clear like he was by all accounts drunk. He was a demagogue he would get up in front of crowds in his staff would try to stop him from getting crowds because he will get worked up and say anything including when he did this disastrous tour around the country for the midterms which is famously called the swing around the circle you've gotten from crowds and they would yell at him about the massacres that had happened in the South Against Union loyalists and African Americans and they would say you know Hang Jefferson Davis. He would yell back then. Why don't you hang thaddeus Stevens like that Stevens? A sitting member of Congress and the President of the United States yelling at a mob. Like why don't you hang that Stevens is like I would say even by the Donald Trump standards probably more extreme than anything. Donald Trump has said more explicit. I think that's right. I mean it does feel like incitement and reform a legal terms right sort of you. You know that kind of encouragement gohmert action and so he does this at couple of stops on this swing around the circle. Interestingly and I've never been able to figure this out those those sentences like those particular statements are Actually Not specifically enumerated in article ten. It's kind of the more general anti-congress rhetoric that he has brought Congress right. This coequal branch took government into disrepute and the sort of unpresidential tenor of his rhetoric is very much. What is being described in article so those beaches are very much encompassed within? I WanNa talk about the parallels between the first presidential impeachment of Andrew Johnson. And what we're seeing now with trump right after we take this break. If you don't know your numbers you don't Know Your Business. Most most companies don't have a clear picture of their business and that's why many businesses struggled to grow net suite by Oracle is here to solve that problem as a business owner. Are you really confident. You're making the right business. Decisions Serious entrepreneurs and financial teams run. Annette sweet the world's number one cloud business system net sweet offers a full picture of your business us everything in one place finance inventory. HR customers no more guessing. No more worrying run your business with confidence grow successfully on net that sweet like Ring Hint Boll and branch and over nineteen thousand other businesses net. Sweet business grows here schedule your free product for right now and receive. They're free guide. Seven key strategies to grow your profits at net sweet dot com slash and Lisi set up your free product or and get your free guide today at net sweet dot dot com slash. NBC Net sweet dot Com Slash NBC. You want to be president. I've watched many candidates ran for their party's nomination but only a few. We knew how to get it for this microphone. My podcast is about what it takes to get the nomination. Six episodes six timeless themes that separate the few winners from the losers. The hope still lives and the dream shall never is so you want to be president with Chris Matthews and MSNBC podcast search. I now wherever you're listening and subscribe I two episodes available now. There's some fundamental existential sense in which members of Congress many people country too. The Guy is like just fundamentally of the office. And then there's an attempt to kind of find the correct procedural legalistic pretext or predicate. I guess for impeaching him and I think there's a little bit of that with trump happening even though I think what he did with Ukraine is one hundred percent impeachable. The context here is. It's like a deeper sense of the guys on fitness. There's also the sort of question about language there's also though and I think this is another place to go in this sort of history that like impeachment always has been pretty partisan like this idea that were in these polarized times and no one is persuadable like it was quite partisan in Johnson's case and it was obviously quite partisan in Clinton's case in the one exception to the rule is the one guy who it worked on exact equation yes and Nixon is is sort of hard to figure you know when we have the set this tiny little set a presidential impeachment and we've never removed the president and of course we didn't remove Nixon although it's almost certain that he would have been removed in the Senate because he decided to leave before even being impeach by the full House so it distorts the overall numbers I think. But yes that is an example of a moment in which history seems to suggest that the country in the congress transcended partisanship and it kind of uniformly condemned Nixon's conduct although the fascinating counterfactual. Think about which you see people at the margins of Republican conservative thinking talk about Nixon. In retrospect which is like yes should have stuck it out dude like call the bluff man you know make them count the votes make them whip against you. Tell them that they're going to destroy the party. And they're gonNA destroy their chances is the next election and like you know again to me what the theme here with impeachment is it. You're sort of at the edge of what the law is saying. You're in some zone of norms shame democratic legitimacy like all this sort of coming together. There's no like clear directive. No blueprint for any of this right like it does come down to politics and it does come down to the sort of like bunch of factors all operating in tandem. And I think it's true that that has always been the case right so it's one of the things I think that scholars of constitutional history tend to say about the framers as they get a lot right and they get some things quite wrong and one of the things they get wrong as feeling to anticipate the kind of rise I of partisanship right sort of importance of parties. There's this idea that if you separate power between the branches of government they're gonNA sort of by institutional role compete for power power and authority as opposed to align with their co partisans even across branches. And that's I think when you look at founding era writing but with impeachment they they seem actually always to have had a sense that it was going to be quite partisan and I think that's why they create the Super Majority requirement in the Senate for because they make the choice to include impeachment and. Yeah I think included for reason and they don't include it so that it will never be used right. I think they fully anticipate that. Under extreme circumstances it will be warranted but that actual removal should you'd be limited to conduct that is able to attract a very significant supermajority members of the Senate. I think there's a lot of things that are there are some serious flaws in American constitutional design. I think the arguments from political scientist one Lynn's about presidentialism and how dangerous that can be. I think we're seeing play out so all of that said. I do think they're right about that. You know it's a significant dramatic matic staff. I mean I had I had a republican congressman. Show a few weeks ago it was talking about how dramatic step was and it's like yeah it is it is it is it is dramatic but what you just said also sort of connects to another another sort of interesting theme to me. Institutionally which is about the relative balance of power between the two branches in the case of Johnson. You've got this very strange situation in which because The the south is not been admitted back into Congress there. These massive supermajority is for the Republican Party in both houses in their overriding veto after veto after veto. It's probably probably the absolute apex of congressional power in the history of the country right. I think that's right. We now live in this Erin which we have had the extreme growth the imperial presidency. Like how do you see this. In the context of sort of balance of power between the brand go back to Johnson for just a second. So yes I think it's right apex of congressional power and Obviously you have the Republican party dominating both houses of Congress congressional power domination and yet they still can't hint remove him a lot but I think there are a couple of important butts right so one is the constitutional design at that. Time is a little bit different. And there's there's kind of this odd gap when it comes to filling a vacancy in the office of Vice President Right. So Johnson becomes president when Lincoln's assassinated but until the twenty fifth amendment there's no mechanism for filling a vacancy in the office vice president until the next election so he does president so so the Congress Senate that is considering voting to remove him is Basically looking at him and looking under the succession laws at the time. The speaker of the House. I'm Ben I think his first name Wade Benjamin Wade who's a pretty radical article Republicans in the summer Stevens Phillips School and the Republican Party the time it's dominant but it is very right so there's a real spectrum there's a radical local wing of the party but they're not all at Stevens by any stretch and so some members of the Senate are sort of looking to that choice and it's such a dramatic choice that they decide they're not going to sort of totally upend the kind of organization of power in government by installing this entirely different figure. We have a really different system right. And I think that's something that gets a little bit lost right so in the original constitution before the Twelfth Amendment you know. The Electoral College cast two ballots. And the person who gets the most votes becomes the president. In the second most becomes the vice president and the Dayton should ever we'll be because it was so dumb choice But he may want to. Debunk that programming. Before you right and so right but of course what it meant was the person who is the number two could be your political rival could be a member of a different political a party and And so when they put impeachment in the Constitution. I think they did this knowing full. Well that the person to whom the power of the presidency would would pass if impeachment was successfully invoked and removal occurred was somebody who was picked. Totally separately was not the president's hand picked by the way the office functions today and then pre twenty Fifth Amendment in a circumstance like the Johnson case it would have been literally as though today if the president were removed from office. Nancy Pelosi became the president. That's not at all the world we live in a world in which the remedy is so much less dramatic because all that happens if the Senate votes to remove is power passes to the presents hand picked second command who has been handpicked precisely for the purpose of serving his or her term if he or she cannot serve up early so Johnson the gentler remedy today than it was under the original constitution. In this case it seems to me that there is a really interesting fight happening the so so. There's obviously a partisan fight. I think there's an ideological there's a political fight. I think there's a you know. I'm biased. Here I think but I think there's a fight over the actual substance and rule of law whether the president can do whatever. The halley wants like rigged the next elections that he wins. But there's also like an interesting Article One branch article two-branch Congress I the White House angle here. Her and as someone who sort of both studies scholar and also worked in. The White House is a lawyer. Like we're as a White House lawyer. You tend to be pretty like a jealous guardian of the president's power. How do you see what's playing out right now in that context? I think you're right that when anybody who has spent some time I'm inside the executive branch and maybe in particular in the White House. It certainly gets into your DNA. A little bit. This kind of reflexive defense of presidential power. And I think that I've been gone from government for a bunch of years now but I do still believe that it's important for all kinds of reasons to have a powerful president but that doesn't mean unchecked president and I think the only reason we haven't seen more sort of unilateral presidentialism in the last three years is because there has been just such chaos and disorder in that administration and the White House in particular but they have gotten gotten their act together to do enough big things. I think that Congress has through sort of inaction and paralysis relinquished a lot of. It's this less formal authorities in recent decades so congress passes laws. That's the core of its article one powers but it has many many other things right conducting oversight of the the executive branches one of them but obviously it appropriates hold hearings at the Senate confirms nominees. I mean it does many many things. I think that an important narrative of the last couple of decades has has been you know you've obviously seen in these kind of inverse trajectories of kind of innocent of presidential power and a decline in congressional power. And I actually think that whatever the next couple of months bring with respect to this impeachment and it does seem like unless something very dramatic shifts the most likely courses impeachment in the House and acquittal in the Senate it has still been an important reassertion of Congressional Authority that House has initiated and the way it has conducted these impeachment hearings so far I think that it has enormous symbolic consequence to impeach a president. Donald trump appreciates that right. So you saw this tweet. A couple of weeks ago go was it. I never thought my name would be associated with that. Ugly word impeachment The impeach me like a dog but he doesn't WanNa be impeached right. So people argue about whether this will help or hurt the president politically. I don't know the answer to that. But even if in some universe it helps him and politically he does not want to be impeached. Absolutely doesn't want to because this is going to be an asterisk next to his name forever right as the fourth president to have these series impeachment Proceedings begun in the third President American history to have been impeached. I also think that there was this unified position of noncompliance with Congressional subpoenas is and oversight requests during the early days of post two thousand eighteen right when the Democrats took control of the House. And you know it starts to normalize this idea that you can simply simply ignore requests from Congress if the White House and other executive branch agencies refused to respond to congressional enquiries and even congressional subpoenas I think just the last few weeks all of these officials acting on their conviction that law requires them to show up in response to a congressional subpoena. You know sort of hardens the lawn. uh-huh of congressional proof of the pudding is in the eating and that the practice the concrete example and the practice of people showing up even when they are political appointees not president which is in the case of Gordon somewhat remarkable that practice has a kind of legal effect where it has kind of effect about what Congress's authority is in a sort of precedent were norm setting. I think that's right. So there's you know the way law develops. I think this is true. Actually broadly but it is certainly true when it comes to disputes between the political branches between the Executive Branch and Congress is that it's very rarely courts that announced what the law is. There are disputes. That occasionally make their way. The lower courts even more rarely make up to the courts of appeals or or very rarely to the supreme court but most of the time these disputes get resolved through accommodation negotiation and practice and those practices kind of hardened into law at least players in these systems believe themselves to be bound to a degree. I mean sometimes times they will say we wanted definitive judicial ruling. But it's pretty rare that that happens and much of the time people conduct themselves under sort of the legal regime that is developed outside outside of course and so. I do think that there is important. Precedent setting function. Just the last couple of weeks of witness testimony has created. Well this is. What's so interesting about this showdown right now between the White House and Congress on a variety of fronts in terms of subpoenaing of witnesses and documents right so like it'd be be a funny metaphor medicine in this context but like the thing about marriage is Thing about marriages would make some marriage. Amazing also sometimes difficult. Is that like. There's no third branch just to go to like. It's just the two of you work it all out you don't you. Don't get to go for a ruling and if there's conflict your beef you gotta just like work it out. There's not like in a workplace where it's like maybe there's a boss or something like and in some ways it's like they're in a marriage in a weird way like the presidency and the Congress they have to work it out between each other and as it's breaking down there like running to this sort of third entity more and more because they can't work it out partly. I think because of how sort of implacable the obstruction has been from the White House but now now it is before the courts and there's not actually a huge body of law in this precisely for that reason right so when I said the Congress has sort of relinquish a lot of it's less formal authorities. One example of that is that I used to exercise what's referred to as its inherent contempt power so if a witness a refuse to show up to testify or produce documents it would directly hold hold that witness individual in contempt impose fines actually in prison in a cell underneath the capital individuals in the nineteen eighteen. Thirty thirty five thirty five and they had some dude in a hotel room. I'm just making that up later. We'll even and we'll take it out either. It is thirty five. I don't check to check. They don't do that anymore and I don't think anybody really thinks they should revive the practice of sending the sergeant at arms to actually actually sees witnesses but John Bolton with a handcuffed to a raider amazing there are people who are suggesting that Congress longer should really do I. I don't see it happening. But when they decided that they needed to go to court to enforce their subpoenas that that was an admission that they lacked the inherent authorities themselves to do it. They needed to get this referee. But that's part of the reason I think these last few weeks that have shown that Congress can actually do a lot without recourse to the courts have been important and and yet as you say there are these high stakes judicial disputes. That are playing out now so we have this ruling that this legal argument at the trump administration has made that certain high level White House officials officials enjoy absolute testimonial immunity. They don't even need to respond. To congressional subpoenas is you know without any real basis in law or logic that everything in our constitutional tradition and constitutional history and the limited Supreme Court precedent on. This question makes clear if the president is not above the law then his advisers visors and to be. And so that's the ruling out of District Court in this Don mcgann case and then there are a couple of rulings in you know these formally unrelated conceptually sort of related cases involving the president's taxes axes in which the lower courts have also said pretty categorically that these arguments that the rules don't apply at all that would ordinarily require document production of a third party that they don't apply at all because the president is involved and that's essentially the argument that the White House has been making too. There's so let's talk about. There's three cases one of them doesn't have to do with Congress it has to do with The Manhattan District Attorney who's seeking the president's taxes as part of the pursuit of an investigation the president's actual lawyer William Convoy as opposed to his like fake encrypted. Letter Rudy Giuliani but like convoy like actually gets I mean to the extent the president as anyone. I don't know but he actually gets paid me. Actually a rights legal brief does legal work. He's the one who made this insane. The argument that like shot someone Fifth Avenue. You can investigate him. Let's sort of take that aside for a second because it doesn't quite play this like direct institutional question about the two branches. There's there's judge Catania Brand Jackson's decision in the District Court which basically was over the matter of whether Don mcgann could be a lovely subpoenaed by Congress. She writes this hundred twenty page opinion. That's like absolute like he definitely can be an has to show up and I think this is an interesting conceptual point like she says. This idea of absolute immunity is nowhere in the constitution. There's nowhere in our legal tradition. The you can block people now. There are privileges that obtain and basically she clears the path for him to show up and say I'm not answering that question and invoke executive privilege but one of the things. I think that it's a technical point. Important one the White House hasn't even done that. Like there is executive privilege and the scope of executive privilege which is the subject of a lot of debate and it's unclear who adjudicates that in the end but they haven't gotten to that point because even before you get to that privilege they're just saying like no you can't talk to these people it's just inconsistent with. There's there's limited case law on it but none of these privileges are absolute and there's no real authority for the proposition that you don't have to show up at all to negotiate over. What are and are not permissible subjects of inquiry? And that's basically the the ruling there. Of course that's going to be appealed. Then there's the mazars which is now gone through two levels levels of the federal courts at District Court saying you have to hand over. The documents to the accounting firm writes the trump intervenes to stop the firm from handing it over. They say you have to hand it over for and then a three judge panel on the Circuit Court affirms that District Court opinion. That's also going to now be a petition to the Supreme Court which they're gonNA here in a few weeks they consider sitter whether to take those cases. There's a good chance they'll take at least the case and maybe even the New York as as well let's talk about the law there because it just seems to me like it. It just seems crazy to me in terms of the constitution that if Congress says we need to investigate the president's finances that the president can be like no you can't like that just seems to me as as just a basic question of I would personally like to know if like the Saudi Kingdom pays him fifty million lean dollars a year in bribes. I don't think that's the case but like I would like to definitively rule out same with the Turks like there's all sorts of things that I think I would like to definitively establish the presence finances finances and it just seems nuts to me. You set a precedent. The Congress cannot get those documents well so it's tricky because they haven't really explained what they're doing in those terms they haven't said were investigating investigating the president because we want to know if he's taking bribes because this whole power of oversight or inquiry that's the power that Congress has exercising when it is doing this sort of thing. It's not explicitly in the constitution and there is no over the word oversight. It's just not there and yet the Supreme Court from very early on has said the power of inquiry is an important important adjunct to Congress has numerous powers the sort of heart of which is lawmaking and so typically when it engage in some kind of fact-finding it explains it it is doing so in order to inform its consideration of passing laws or of overseeing agencies. You know it links up what it is doing often again to specific lawmaking so here it said something like thinking about passing some ethics laws that apply to the president and so we kind of want to know what these tax returns show to inform our consideration ratio lawmaking judge rouse had around that he circuit to sense from that majority opinion right. She is a trump appointee. Who Fill cabinet right like all these judges of Federalist Society Heidi Conservative judge? who went through with McConnell's stewardship yet and I think is now almost surely on Supreme Court shortlist in that Administration and she writes this long opinion opinion? That says basically what the what Congress is trying to do is. They're saying they're thinking about lawmaking really they're trying to investigate. And that's a law enforcement function and Congress is not a law enforcement entity that's law enforcement is executive an executive branch function and part of that proposition is true of course row and other sort of conservatives of her stripe stripe think that you can't have any kind of independent authority inside the executive branch that would investigate the president. So it's a little bit of sort of heads. The president wins tails. You lose especially fun. If she makes the argument that like Sivan's can have either. I probably would but so was weird about her. Descend does she says you know it's improper. They're thinking about laws. That's not really what they're trying to do here. And there's a constitutional mechanism for investigating presidential misconduct and that is impeachment. And so it's this weird opinion because she writes it a couple of weeks ago when we were already in this phase at the impeachment inquiry but the request stems from some months ago and so the kind of facts on the ground when this congressional committee ready made its request Tomase ours. Were very different from the facts. Now which is the one reason I think. The Supreme Court might not take skis because they would be arguing in the abstract about Congress power absent impeachment inquiry to request these kinds of. Maybe they refile a request. That explicitly ties the interest to the impeachment inquiry and not changes the calculus. But but those are the that's basically the universe of argument. I mean again i. I'm I'm playing sort of like ignorance blowhard here but it just seems to me like we're considering a law to make the president disclose his taxes. which we don't have in the books and good God? We should in has been having practice. We we should just do it like we should know what the president's income and accounts are we should know who is money to and who he gets payments from or she and we're going to do do that and like peers are doing the fact-finding for legislative purpose. Like do that it just seems like how could that you know again all this stuff at a certain level I'm really cynical about higher courts. Sort of vote counting and legal realism. And I think that ultimately we'll we'll see I mean I think it's like they think they can count to five on the Supreme Court for everything everything and that's why they're rushing to get up there and that's also why they're making frankly like pretty ludicrous arguments and a lot of these cases and that's not coming from me. That's coming from the the judges a first impression who keep getting the cases and being like they haven't been ruling like well. You've got a point here it's been like this is pretty ridiculous and not just judges but you you know kind of lawyers of all ideological thought that some of the arguments made by the administration by White House. Counsel pets have alone in some of his correspondence with Congress in in some of these briefs and in the New York case they're just not particularly defensible legal positions. And that's why I retain a little bit more idealism about the Supreme Court than you do but I it's hard for me to seat Pete trump cotton to five and either these cases. But that's eating these words well so that point about what the approach is here. I mean Charlie. Savage has a piece in the Times today. That basically says they keep losing in the courts. But they're winning because they're delaying right right. Like the key point is they keep getting the stays and it's hard to explain all this mechanisms and again like my mastery of civil procedure is terr- it. It's it's it's it's not good. Well I mean it's fine for a layman but but the point is it like they keep losing keep getting stays like it's it's just a nice. Why yeah no one's gotten the taxes yet? That early on I think that Schiff seems to have made the decision that he will work with the universe of information that he's able to obtain without out any judicial assistance and I'm not sure it may be that now they're holds a different view or maybe now there's on the same page about it. I'm not sure. But in addition to all these substantive substantive calls they have to make about going broad or narrow to go back to our earlier conversation they have to make this procedural call about whether it is worth trying trying to get some expedited judicial resolution of some subset of these legal questions in time to include some of this material potentially in articles of impeachment or whether they just cut their losses in the courts and say it's too resource intensive to try and too time consuming and who knows what we at the end of the day anyway and maybe they are pessimistic. Like you about what the Supreme Court is likely to do. And so they say we're GonNa work with what we have and we have a lot right like we haven't. I don't know if we've said much about that but I definitely do think that there's a lot that has already been produced in conjunction action with a couple of weeks of hearings. Well so that's there has been a tremendous amount of facts entered into evidence about Ukraine. I mean the president knew about the whistleblower complaint when when he answers the phone in a bad mood according to the testimony Gordon Silent and Barks at him like I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want nothing I want. Nothing thing. That's the Turned into an Abba Imo song that we played on the show is very missed. Also ramones song we later. We'll play that clip later. Yes it's special bespoke spoke Internet curation for my spouse So you know. There's just a huge amount of facts and again. I think I know the answer to this. I know I have my opinions and this is an area that you know this less a question of law mortgage like falling but like Egypt seems dead to rights on the facts like like. They did what they did. It was an extortion. It was a quid pro quo. It was whatever you WANNA call it like and it was done at a fairly systematic level involving a whole bunch of people and they were kind of embarrassed and sketchy about it is my basic takeaway from the testimony. Yeah and if you take an active back to the discussion we were having at the beginning about the ways that the folks I drafted the Constitution thought and talked about the kinds of offenses that would warrant impeachment and I should say. I don't think that their views are fully controlling right. If kind of question about what the Constitution means. But I think it's always interesting and helpful and I don't think anything in the intervening couple hundred years undermines any of this but that it was always about offenses that are in their nature political. That is talking about can only be committed by virtue of holding the Office of the president. There's also all of this conversation about undue foreign interference. This this is like feels really sketchy. Actually don't want foreigners having anything to do with us and yet this idea that the they they were worried about foreign entanglements sort sort of corrupting a president who's sort of primary loyalty right should be to the United States right to the national interest. And that's you know the places that I thought that the testimony the last couple of weeks was the most powerful Fiona Hill. Bill Taylor places where everyone seems to agree that this scheme of trying to induce these political investigations instigations and using this White House meeting military it has leveraged for doing that were corrupt and self interested in placed the president self interest above the national interest. But there are also places where the testimony seems to suggest that they materially hurt America's national interest and that the idea of being willing to undermine undermine American foreign policy interests national security interests in furtherance of personal sort of political objectives. Feels like it gets very close to the core of what what. The impeachment procedure was designed to target. There's also something really interesting about the testimony to me. which was this is like a nerdy interest of mine and I? It's pretty interesting. I don't actually have much knowledge all John. But you know that's par for the course but basically between the civil war and through Teddy Roosevelt Civil Service revolution that happens in the United States federal government in prior to that civil service revolution. Like it's wild. How corrupt all that is? Basically the president is like a pointing individual like post masters which is like the pulse service like the big part of the federal bureaucracy and the president just gives them out the way that Chicago mayor boss would support. And it's and it's like a great job Bob and like hugest get it to supporters and basically you come into office as the president with like a huge Satchel of jobs. And you take that Satchel of jobs and you just give it to your loyalists Allah boss Tweed and that's essentially the entire. Federal Government works until the sort of middle of the latter half of the nineteenth century. When there's a series of civil service? Big Pendleton Act is like an eighteen ninety s things really there's a bunch of changes but but ultimately what you get is this distinction between political civil servants and a lot of those people that testified were civil servants and part of it was fascinating to me was civil servants and civil service reform. All that stuff is like a little obscure and a little arid but like you're seeing the importance of it to the functioning of like a modern state under the rule of law bureaucrats civil servants people that are not just like essentially tribally loyal or in a monetary sense loyal to the party bosses losses running the country who are just there to serve the national interest across various administrations that is a really important feature and it also also feels like in an existential. That's a little bit. What's on the table right now? Because the president's people arguing screw these bureaucrats the presence at the national interest and if the President says that extorting dirt on his on his opponent is in the national interest then it is by definition and who the hell cares what George Ken test to say right right and I think maybe canton particular was sort of doing in this thing that I think is responsible for what you just said which is that. He sort of says in Uganda. The very much says this you know one of the things that we do is to promote rule of law values and you know kind of the a political enforcement of the law in particular. We're talking about criminal investigations and prosecutions. But just in general that a lot of the functions of government should be done in an apolitical a-political fashion is of value. That we are trying to stand. She ate throughout the world and when we are sending from the very highest levels a message that runs directly contrary to that we've absolutely no credibility ability and in some ways they're up. You're performing that value of impartial. Now they're not prosecutors but they're performing this value of impartial enforcement of the law or at least impartial the promotion of what they understand to be the national interest of the United States. The and these are the official goals to support these anti-corruption measures in Ukraine. That's not their personal hobbyhorse. Right that is considered an articulated and public position of the United States government. But the president didn't come in and try to officially officially changed that position right in. I actually believe these. Civil servants would have carried out their directives in the same way that they they might have disagreed. But if they're official a policy change I do think that they would have carried them out and then I think is what. They're sort of demonstrating but absent that all this looked like with this you know whatever. Domestic political errand is how Fiona Hill described it that that had nothing to do with the national interest of the United States. And you know what the president didn't WanNa run this through the ordinary policy channels right because he understood and the people people closest to him understood that it was wrong right and I think actually there's there's actual proof of that they would if he'd reoriented American policy in a sort of official sense like North Korea policy turned hugely one. Eighty on a dime essentially. And there's a million civil servants who had to go and work set up that summit now some of them I think probably thought this is pretty nuts. I don't think we've done the groundwork for this. But they went there and they said did the Legwork to that summit and there were translators and there were subject matter experts and there were regional experts. All of whom. Tom Put their shoulders to the wheel to make sure that the summit with Kim Jong UN happened same thing with northeastern Syria and the withdrawal. There like there was a lot of yelping about it. Particularly by folks were retired in some people you know from the armed services on the record but like ultimately when the president is made these decisions even when they've run anathema to what a lot of people like the people do presidential point. Yeah they carry. They carry that out the other thing that that one thing I feel like we haven't talked really about is just is that the scheme was about and misconduct is about in this ties. Back a bit to the founding era history. But it's about an election right. It is about interference in some sense with the American election and that also seems like a really important factor when you're sort of evaluating how serious the misconduct is how it tracks the purposes of impeachment. Right so there's discreet. George Mason quotes at. This is when the early on in the convention there are discussing whether even to have impeachment for the president. Oh and he says something like Shell. The man who was practiced corruption and by that means procured. His appointment be suffered to escape punishment. Right because if all you have is election for years later what if somebody gets in there through corrupt means right. Impeachment is the only out and that seems like a critical fact about this that the purpose here was to obtain some kind of advantage in this looming presidential collection. And I I just like descriptively someone who talks to members of Congress a lot that. That's what got them on board the thing that made it possible for are there to be the votes for this which there weren't for longtime was evidence like oh he's trying to rig the next election. If you do not do everything you can to send the the message. That's not okay. He will use his powers to try to rig the next election and the presence powerful and he's very profitable important affairs and he has a bunch irregular channels already established with the Saudis and with the Turks and God knows who else and like if that was the thing that got on board. They did not want to do it. Nancy Pelosi didn't WANNA do House leadership definitely didn't WanNa do it and the frontline members and those forty seats and want to do it and the thing that converted them was precisely that it was like this break glass stuff because if you let them get I'm like we can't have a free and fair election and what so deeply disturbing is the president's continued insistence that this was a perfect phone call suggest to me that he thinks the conduct was okay that he he has engaged in it previously that he will engage in it again right. It was a perfect phone call. I did nothing wrong. And that I don't know if it's affecting the thinking of members of Congress but from the perspective perspective of the imperative of doing everything possible to communicate the seriousness of the violation that seems critical. I think that's probably the most important lesson all here So I I would go another hour but I think we'll take the second offline perfect taken back to Brooklyn of K K. Cha is a professor at Cardozo Law. School She is a legal analyst and commentator. ABC News She's the Co host of the fantastic podcast strict scrutiny which I love and listened to Not Out of any sense of special obligation because I learned a ton from it so you should definitely check that out where reader podcasts. She's the love of my life. My children my favorite human being on earth to cut out. We've been together. We've been together since we were nineteen years old and it was so great to have you back. Come back anytime you could. It also come my show okay. Things tonight once again agreed thanks to To my my life partner my life Ishak said something very funny afterwards. which is that? We recorded this on on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving had actually like make some childcare arrangements or she'd come into the city and then afterwards she's like I just realized I have a sneaking suspicion that it was very hard to book someone to do the podcast. Let's do for Thanksgiving and that's why which was not true. Actually in fact it was the opposite. We were pressing to get her as soon as possible and I booked her once and she put me off by week. She said she couldn't fit me and her schedule. So just for the record but again like I said you can listen to strict scrutiny. which a great podcast about the federal courts particularly of the Supreme Court? You can get that wherever we get your podcasts. Also if you like that conversation you go back to the first one that Kate and I did about a year ago which is called the rule of law in the era of trump with so you can search that in the archives of with pod. It's it's sort of interesting to listen to that just to see how many of those issues endure and how far we've come and how far we haven't come in certain ways also a reminder that the final with pod showed cimber number eight seven. PM Town All New York City. Tony Kushner young female playwright. Jeremy Harris Who's written slave play which she should. Google look up which is really controversial in mind blowing wild a wild piece of art the two of them in conversation in front of a thousand folks. It's going to be a lot of fun. You can get tickets. TICKETMASTER DOT COM. Search Chris Hayes and go click on one of the blue dots have lock and and enter podcast as your special discount code to get thirty percent off the list price. We would love to see you. Their email us with prodigy meter dot com send US tweets the Hashtag with Bod. Let us know what you're thinking about the show. Yes you WanNa hear from things you like things. You didn't like any of that. We love to hear it. Why is this happening is presented by MSNBC NBC News produced by the All team and features music by Kuker? You can see more of our work including links to things we mentioned here like on. NBC News Dot Com Slash. Wise's happening Lisa. Sky Hain loved working with people. She was excited about her new job. Day One literally. Am I have an email that says good morning let's create the largest networking community on the planet lease is new. Boss was a six foot by entrepreneur from Israel Israel named Adam Newman and he had a brand new startup called we work. I remember thinking all right. I'm about to be on a ride. Why is this a better? Ideal for millennials than working at home or finding an office we like to say this generation exclaiming by age or gender under. He said that they were elevating the consciousness of people on the planet. It was a billion dollar idea to co working giant. We work is amongst the most valuable startups in the WHOA. Thank you hear evoked. Who does this do all the people? deloite go Lloyd Lloyd or Goldman Goldman Sachs Goldman Sachs. Nobody does that nobody does that. It's weird it's just so weird Brahma laundry. The makers of Dr Death and business wars comes a new series. We crashed about a forty seven billion in dollars. Startup was a lot of talk about movement and culture and spiritual awakening and quite frankly on both. That was just us too good to be true. I'm David Brown hosted business. And from wonder he comes. We crashed subscribed to. We crashed on apple podcasts. Now now 'cause.

president Congress White House Supreme Court Senate Andrew Johnson United States donald trump Senate president vice president bribery Vice President Right Richard Nixon Kate Shah tiffany executive John Paul Stevens Executive Branch District Court partner
The Meaning of Impeachment with Kate Shaw

Why Is This Happening? with Chris Hayes

58:10 min | 8 months ago

The Meaning of Impeachment with Kate Shaw

"The places that I thought that the testimony in the last couple of weeks was the most powerful Fiona Hill. Bill Taylor places where everyone seems to agree that this scheme of trying to induce these political investigations and using this White House meeting and military it has leveraged for doing that were corrupt and self interested in placed the president self interest just above the national interest but there are also places where the testimony seems to suggest that they materially hurt America's national interests and that feels like it gets very theory close to the core of what the impeachment procedure was designed to target. Hello and welcome to why this happening with me. Your host Chris Hayes. So we've got some big news for you with Pod. Listeners you've got this podcast blasting the inner ear holes you're thinking yourself. I want to go and see last. Live live with pod of the fall tour. Semra eighth at the town hall in New York City Seven. PM with the Great. Tony Kushner. Jeremy Harris talking about spectacle and politics and drama and the drama that we all live in as our sort of national psycho drama were trapped in which is like one long Eugene. O.`Neil play that we can't get out of. I WANNA go see that but great news. We have a special deal for you. We've got discounted tickets. TICKETMASTER DOT COM searcher Chris Hayes. For the event there are blue dots and have a lock on them. If you enter the offer code which is podcast. which is what this is ironically enough? If you enter the offer code podcast you get thirty percent off the listed price so good at ticketmaster dot com. Search Chris as the event finals little blue dots with the little insignia. On them they have a lock. Click on them. Enter podcast the offer code and you get thirty percent off listed price. It's it's going to be super awesome. I'm really looking forward to it. A great way to ring in holiday season here in New York City. Today's guest is the most special guest the most special guest. She's not technically. Are I return guests. So we've had Nicole Hannah. Jones was on the podcast right when we started it and then she was. One of the live with pod discusses when we were in Chicago. We've also had Dale L.. Hose natio- you lawyer on twice just to sort of do a kind of like factual follow up. Because he was on to talk about a case. That was moving through the court so we had him to come back to talk about it. but kate is our first sort of normal repeat in studio guests and you could probably already know because you've read the description that the Kate I'm talking to is the love of my life if my spouse my life partner the mother of my children the dope est the greatest the most brilliant. Kate Shah tiffany shaking your head as a proxy proxy for Kate who had were the same. And you'll hear her disclaim all my a few surprise of her but I will say this. We are constantly situation to people talk about impeachment and impeachment is a thing. It doesn't happen that often. It's only happened. There's only been two formal impeachment votes in the history of the country. Of course there's Nixon to where there was an inquiry and never got to vote so this is the fourth time that we've been sort of this far along in the process and because it has an often and there's not a lot of people with like real granular expertise in the various areas of law. That are necessary. It's actually I find kind of hard to book impeachment gas like we have a sort of small group of people that I feel like really know this stuff and you'll Koch you'll just wrote a book on it. And Elizabeth Holtzman. Has This really unique perspective. Because she was on the Judiciary Committee that brought up the articles of impeachment for Richard Nixon. And there's other folks. We talked to who are all great legal minds but I keep having the thought that like. I would like to talk to kate about it and I'm not the only when it feels this way. She's a contributor on the networks. ABC She has been on Good Morning America and this week and she's been doing their live network coverage when they do the actual impeachment hearings on ABC's network coverage so you know case just got this really incredible mix of experience where she clerked on the Supreme Court justice jump all Stevens she served as a White House. Associate White House counsel in the Obama Administration. She was working in some ways with stuff. They're doing congress in terms of judicial nominations. That was one of the areas that she worked on. She then became a constitutional law scholar. She has written about presidential speech presidential intent. She's got a new article that she's just finishing up. It's about impeachment presidential impeachment and in presidential speech. Can you basically impeach president for things he says. Are there things a president can say it rise to level of high crimes misdemeanor so because she has this sort of incredible all three hundred sixty degree view of history of the law. The legal theory the practice the different disputes between the branches. She's just a perfect person to talk to you about this so oh I got her back in the studio and we're we basically talk about where we are right now with the impeachment inquiry the various kind of legal questions arises the unsettled legal questions questions. A kind of fascinating constitutional practice that's embodied in these standoffs between the branches. And what those mean what it means for constitutional structure and self-governance. We got to all of that and she's also got a great voice among her many many many many talents so and I should should note that if you like this conversation. Kate actually hosts a podcast. It's called strict scrutiny. which you can find wherever your podcasts? She hosts it along with three other women who are lawyers and legal experts and they talk about the courts particularly a spring court. It comes out every week. It's great I listened to it because I learned a lot from it. It sort of perfectly pitched at my level of understanding which is sophisticated but not like intimidatingly technical so checkout strict scrutiny nick and without further ado me and my wife chopping it up all right so this is big the first actual repeat guest in studio one only Keisha who. I've just done an intro about which you told me. You're not and disclaimed like he did the last time. Tell me you're gonNA be reasonable reasonable. But the actual reality of the situation is that you're doing all this commentary for for ABC. See you've been doing the live hearings on network television. You've been at the table discussing it. You have this great. PODCAST called strict scrutiny. Which is about the law and the courts and we talk a lot about the stuff? So you're the even if we weren't married if I didn't love you madly as I do and you weren't a mother my children and life partner in an objective sense. I've been wanting to talk to you on the pod about All this stuff so maybe let's just start at the most basic thing which is like you have the law review article. Actually that you've been working on for while about impeachment and it is led you to do a lot of reading about the trajectory of the constitution. Its interpretation of what it means and maybe we can just start with like how the founders thought about impeachment wise in the Constitution to begin the constitutional convention. There is definitely an argument. Made that is echoed in an argument. That gets me today today. which is we are providing for a presidency with a four year term? Elections are the way to deal with presidential misconduct. And that's not an argument that carries the day right. The opposing camp. MM says there will be times. Elections are simply not enough right to respond to certain kinds of presidential wrongdoing. And so we should put some mechanism awesome into the constitution that permits the removal of President prior to the termination of the or the completion of the president's term. But so they once they agree that impeachment should be in the constitution. There are all of these questions I about who should even have the power of impeachment. So there's some thought that maybe the Supreme Court should hold the power of impeachment or that a majority Jordan of state legislature should be able to impeach the president. So it's not even clear initially that it's going to be divided between the two houses of Congress but that's basically the structural arrangement that they get to the house will hold the power of impeachment and then the Senate will hold the power to try impeachments so they kind of get to an agreement that there will be impeachment in the constitution and that that that's kind of the process and I think they also kind of early on decide. The punishment for impeachment will go no further than removal from office and disqualification from future office-holding so put in the stocks upon and tar and feather. I mean it's you know there were you know executions right after impeachments in England and the framers. Yeah that's usually the way it goes down like in like like you get rid of the tyrant and the tired at the town square right and I. I think that they thought they were kind of civilizing and domesticating this procedure right and so it is a very tame and gentle procedure compared to the kinds of impeachment that that preceded it so of those things get decided and then the big question is okay. So how are we going to define the kind of conduct that would warrant impeachment so so initially. There's a draft that proposes impeachment for malpractice or neglected. Duty says a really low bar neglect of duty. Like your your your your job. You're not working very hard. You take vacation go to your properties in Florida. All the tire rightly so you can imagine that's not but of course they reject that so that so that I think is pretty. Broadly understood not to set a high enough bar and so there is a proposal that it'll be treason. Bribery or corruption. Interestingly corruption would be in there is a standalone basis. Things might be cleaner if that had been but yes but it will corruption again like a malleable malleable. And it's all these definitional questions wins which you know you. You told me this great line about I've used on the podcast before and I don't even know if it's an actual Yogi Berra quote but like if they moved the first base closer to home there wouldn't be so many close calls. I yeah like whatever the words would be we would be having huge fights about the interpretive category that that signifies absolutely although before they get to high crimes and misdemeanors. They have a couple of other formulations that they consider and one of them is treason. Bribery and maladministration which is sort of similar to this neglect of duty. Just being the job. I think it's Madison. Who says that would basically mean that the Senate can inject a president who dislikes Houma disagrees? Right sort of giving the Senate kind of veto over who occupies the presidency. So then George Mason. Who's kind of doing the drafting at this point out ministration? He puts in high crimes and misdemeanors so the final languages and actually initially. It's high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States. And that I think it's pulled out when it's in the committee on style so that's not supposed to be a substantive have changed so maybe that's interesting and important that against the United States is the original conception right it is not these kinds of crimes and misdemeanors and we can talk about what kind of relationship ship. They should bear to ordinary kinds of criminal offenses but that the victim in some deep sense is supposed to be the policy. The United States government As opposed to ordinary crimes have a lot of the the time individual victims so treason bribery. Other high crimes and misdemeanors is the final language. They don't invent this language out of whole cloth rated has these English antecedents and it turns out. It's kind of a term of art that had been used from the fourteenth century on in English context right often to to eject government officials so high crimes and misdemeanors was often the term that was used to describe the conduct for right. If you're getting rid of an official there's examples where that's the term of art it means essentially abuse of power right. Yeah I think that's right. Abuse of power abuse of authority self-dealing corruption offenses against the state eight. Oh that is I think kind of encompassed within the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors you know. This is the thing that I've talked about a lot on the show you've talked about in other contexts non show because you won't come on my show but Part I'm come on your show Hartley contractually partly just you don't WanNa come out. It would be weird. Tiffany she told me issues like getting stalked by like a CNN booker. And I was like absolutely not like what I absolutely love. Then it'd be like why can't go on another network Anyway this is a point that we made on the show. But I think it's worth reaffirming that there are things that would be violations of the US criminal code like if we found doubt that Donald Trump was in a gift shop and he just likes stole fifty dollars worth of stuff in his suit which like wouldn't be the least plausible Zabol thing that's ever told me happened. Like I wouldn't be like no way. Maybe I could see that you know violent. It'll be clear like stealing fifty dollars worth of stuff. Shoplifting that's clearly a criminal infraction peed happens to people all the time when owner rider famously. Does that would not be an impeachable offense. Probably there's not a high crime and misdemeanor demeanor because it's even if it's a violation of law criminal it's not an abuse of office and then the flip side is that there's things you can do as president that don't like in a technical sense. Violate the Criminal Code of the US government. That would be a misdemeanor right and I think that almost everyone agrees with that basic proposition that impeachable offenses need not be criminal and that not all crimes are impeachable so there's just lots of things that violate laws including federal laws that I don't think people believe warrant impeachment and obviously obviously theft traffic offenses these obviously local kinds of offenses typically. But even things like you know certain kinds of tax fraud are probably not grounds for impeachment. Meant I would say like yeah I would say like in my conception of this and this is based on nothing but meat opining which is hilarious but the other new there Let's say that we found out that Donald Trump had committed tax fraud in two thousand fourteen and two thousand fifteen. I think it would actually be. I don't think you should impeach him for that. Honestly like I depending on the kind of fraud I think that's also true about post-presidential fraud. Honestly like I think it would depend on the kind mind of fraud or having not seen the tax returns. We don't have no idea but I think that there could be. The office is the point that I'm trying to make and like even though yeah I think our instinct is a constantly refer back to the criminal code or crimes other people do even in this case of bribery. Extortion that to me. What sort of singularly really important here is in some ways? It's crimes that no one else could do right. Only the president could try to extort Ukraine to manufacturing during his political. I can't do do that as a normal citizen right. So there's this classic little treatise on impeachment from nineteen seventy four that offers a couple of examples of things that are obviously not crimes but that most people would agree should at least I potentially warrant impeachment and things like making a public commitment not to appoint anybody of a particular religion or particular race to public office. He has the power to do that. And there's nothing criminal about it and yet it is antithetical to core constitutional values of equality. Jews cabinet yeah you could do that the constitution but you cannot map president. Neil Koch is a great example in this new book that he just published on impeachment that says if the president had his sibling murder his political local opponent. Brother does it. Totally his own acquires on. And then the president just president pardons him now. The president has pardon power so he has the constitutional authority to do that. But I think think that almost everyone would agree that that would warrant impeachment and again so he has these powers that he enjoys by virtue of the office and the abuse of those powers in some ways. They don't finally the criminal. Yeah because we don't write laws that only target conduct that only the president and gin so that's one of the many reasons I think that focusing too closely on the specific provisions of the Criminal Law is a mistake when we're asking about impeachment. It's funny too because I feel like these thought. Experiments on some level there hypotheticals but they're also kind of the conceptual L. Region that we now inhabit all the time. which is you know during the hearing they were talking about answering who was a career foreign service official who had been dispatched to the Ukrainian embassador and everyone everyone was saying correctly? The president can hire and fire ambassadors. They can president can recall ambassador absolutely but then my response was right but if it was because she refused to sleep with him then I mean yes constitutionally could but that would be an abuse of power like you have to have romantic relations with me or calling you we would all be like okay. I guess constitutionally has the power to do that but that's not cool. Yeah and in some ways. It's like everything that fits in this category of like a thing that's unthinkable or thing that like you constitutionally have the power to do but shouldn't or it violate something deep about the trust of the office is the category that we end up having impeachment. Deal right well. That's true about presidents residents right so the impeachment language in the constitution applies to the president vice president and all civil officers of the United States. So we have very small set of presidential impeachments in our history and a pretty small set of impeachments overall but the overall says of course larger. So we've impeached Supreme Court justice and a cabinet secretary and actually a senator. Although it's now very much the position that you have to expel senator if you want to elect a senator in the house not removed in the Senate then expelled him but yeah no. It's one of the president's started. We're talking about how Adam Schiff should be impeached. Everyone's like adult. You can't impeach a member of Congress it was one of the few moments now. I was like well. You know he has kind of a point which is at least the founding generation. We need the same mistake. They thought well like yeah. That's how you get rid of an office anyway. So no he's wrong. By the way there's an amazing little snapshot of the Digital Labor in our household were like I have opinion. That kid has knowledge. That's that's wild. So they actually did. There was a senator impeached And a a cabinet secretary and a bunch of federal judges and so I think there've been something like nineteen impeachments over. Also you know fourteen or fifteen of them have been federal judges. A lot of them have engaged in bribery type crimes crimes but they typically get charge as high crimes misdemeanors but back to your point about why we go so often to the criminal code to the president can't be criminally charged right. At least that's the sort of largely really settled understanding but judges can and so some of these judges get charged criminally and then impeached. And so the way you described their misconduct tracks. The criminal offense sized raised because they've already been either charged convicted investigated for engaging in this bribery type conduct and so it makes sense that impeachment language would look like the criminal context context language but of course that's not the case of presidents so the set of impeachments is a small one man. We've got four impeach an increase of presidents and we've only got to actual impatience happen the first one we did a whole podcast about it with Brennan Wine Apple. Who wrote that book which you and I have both read? And there's a bunch of stuff that's interesting about ended on one. Is that like they have to figure out the procedure. They have to figure out like they're doing all of it for the first time. There's very little for them to work off of for precedent. Even though there's been other impeachments there hasn't been a president but there's one article of impeachment. That is the most interesting to me that gets the least historical attention I think which is what you've been writing about. Yeah so I really don't feel like going to hijack this podcast is like a little advertisement for my law review article. No yeah that's what you're here for. But so right. So I'm writing this article. Real Division self-promotion uh-huh. I'm reading this article about the role of speech in previous impeachment efforts so I started just kind of reading about impeachment history over the summer which was obviously fortuitous. Because I'm pretty steep at least the secondary literature and I'm not a historian so I read someone up all of the primary sources but I was just curious how the Congress's that have considered and then actually taken steps impeach. Previous presidents have thought about the president's speech and the role of presidential speech in those impeachment effort so they Andrew Johnson impeachment. Effort was on its surface largely about in the articles focused on Johnson's violation of the statute called the tenure of office act which required him. MM to obtain Senate consent before firing cabinet secretary so he in violation of the statute fired his worst secretary who he had inherited from Lincoln. You've been Lincoln's War Secretary Edwin Stanton and so ten of the twelve articles against Andrew Johnson. Really focus on that violation but then two of them and in particular. The tenth article are totally different and the tenth. The article is really about Johnson's. Public speeches and in particular has attacks in public on Congress is accused of these intemperate harangues peculiarly indecent and unbecoming the Chief Magistrate of the United States in article. Ten intemperate harangues. He's Tim for intemperate harangues literally. They did Among other things so oh I think kind of deep points that Brenda wine making this book. The teacher's is the conduct described in article. Ten and article. Eleven and so ten is about his public speech in eleven is really kind one of more broadly about his kind of thwarting of reconstruction right. That's a little bit more explicit an article eleven but that those are the things he was really impeached for that the tenure of office act was an excuse abuse and it was an error in misstep on the part of the Republican Congress to try to execute this narrow and formalistic legalistic impeachment meant rather than sort of forthrightly. Tell the country why they believe Johnson was unfit to remain in office. But there are glimpses of maybe the true motivations nations that you can find an article ten and eleven and so ten is really the thing I focus on in that part of and some of the speech I mean just to be clear like he was by all accounts drunk. He was a demagogue he would get up in front of crowds in his staff would try to stop him from getting crowds because he will get worked up and say anything including when he did this disastrous tour around the country for the midterms which is famously called the swing around the circle. You you've gotten from crowds and they would yell at him about the massacres. That had happened in the South Against Union loyalists and African Americans and they would say you know. Hang Jefferson Davis. He would yell back then. Then why don't you hang thaddeus Stevens like that Stevens. A sitting member of Congress and the President of the United States yelling at a mob. Like why don't you hang that Stevens is like I would say even by the Donald Trump standards probably more extreme than anything. Donald Trump has said more explicit. I think that's right. I mean it does feel like incitement and reform a legal terms right sort of you. You know that kind of encouragement gohmert action and so he does this at a couple of stops on this swing around the circle. Interestingly and I've never been able to figure this out those those sentences like those particular statements are Actually Not specifically enumerated in article. Ten kind of the more general anti-congress rhetoric that he has brought Congress. Right this coequal branch. The government into disrepute and the sort of unpresidential tenor of his rhetoric is very much. What is being described in article ten and so those beaches are very much encompassed within it? I WanNa talk about the parallels between the first presidential impeachment of Andrew Johnson. And what we're seeing now with trump right after we take this break the meet the press. Chuck Todd Cast. It's an insider's take on politics. The two thousand election more candid conversations with some of my favorite reporters about things. We usually discuss off camera. Listen for free. Wherever were you? Get Your podcast. Hey Everyone Steve Kornacki here. We have heard explosive testimony from key witnesses in the public impeachment hearings. So what's next as the case for impeachment Ben made could the president count on Republican support in a Senate trial. And how could it affect the twenty twenty election. While every Monday Wednesday and Friday I talked to NBC News reporters to answer these questions and more on article two inside impeachment it's an NBC News. podcast host we break down what matters what's next next and what it means for our country search now wherever you're listening to this podcast to subscribe for free. Thanks for listening. There's some fundamental existential sense in which members of Congress and a many people in the country. The guys like just fundamentally am unfit for the office. And then there's an attempt to kind of find the sort of correct procedural cedras legalistic pretext or predicate. I guess for impeaching him and I think there's a little bit of that with trump happening even though I think what he did with Ukraine is one hundred percent impeachable. The context here is like a deeper sense of the guys on fitness. There's also the sort of question about language there's also though and I think this is another place to go on. This sort of history is. Is it like impeachment. Always has been pretty partisan like this idea that we're in these polarize times and no one is persuadable like it was quite partisan in Johnson's case and it was obviously quite partisan in Clinton's case the one exception to the rule is the one guy who it works. Don Yes and Nixon is is sort of hard to figure when we have the set in tiny little set of presidential impeachments. We've never removed the president. And of course we didn't remove Nixon although it's almost certain that he would have been removed in the Senate because he decided added to leave before you even being impeached by the full house so it distorts the overall numbers I think but yes that is an example of a moment. In which history seems to suggest that the country in the congress restaurants ended partisanship and kind of uniformly condemned Nixon's conduct although the fastening counterfactual. I think about which you see people at the margins of sort of Republican conservative thinking we can talk about Nixon. In retrospect which is like yes. Should've stuck it out. Dude like call the bluff man. You know make them count the votes make them whip against you. Tell them that they're going to destroy destroyed party and they're gonNA destroy their chances in the next election and like you know again to me. What the theme here with impeachment is that you're sort of at the edge of what the law is saying thank your zone of norms shame democratic legitimacy like all? This stuff is coming together. There's no like clear directive addictive. No blueprint for any of this right like it does come down to politics and it does come down to the sort of like bunch of factors operating in tandem. Yeah and I think it's true that that that is always been the case right. So it's one of the things I think that scholars of constitutional history tend to say about the framers. They get a lot right and they get. somethings quite wrong and one of the things they get wrong as feeling alling to anticipate the kind of rise of partisanship right the sort of importance of parties. There's this idea that if you separate power. Between the branches of government they are going to sort of by Institutional Channel Role Compete for power and authority as opposed to align with their co partisans even across branches and. That's I think right when you look. At founding era era writing but with impeachment they seem always to have had a sense that it was going to be quite partisan and I think that's why they create the supermajority requirement in the Senate for a movie because they make the choice this to include impeachment and they think included for reason and they don't include it so that it will never be used ready to think they fully anticipate that under extreme circumstances it will be warranted but that actual actual removal should be limited to conduct at his able to attract a very significant super majority of members of the Senate. I think there's a lot of things that are there are some serious flaws in American constitutional as usual design. I think the arguments from political scientists one Lynn's about presidentialism and how dangerous that can be. I think we're seeing play out so all of that said I do think like they're right. What about that you know? It's a significant dramatic staff. I mean I had I had a republican congressman. Ron Show a few weeks ago. Talking about how dramatic step was and it's like. Yeah it is it is it is it is dramatic but what you just said also connects to another sort of interesting theme to me. Institutionally which is about the relative balance of power between the two branches in the case of Johnson. You've got this very strange situation in in which because of the south is not been admitted back into Congress there these massive super majorities for the Republican Party in both houses in their overriding veto after trivial. After Vito it's probably the absolute apex of congressional power in the history of the country. I think that's right. We now live in this era in which we have had the extreme growth of the imperial presidency. Like how do you see this. In the context of sort of balance of power between the brand to go back to Johnson for just a second so yes I think it's right a apex of congressional power and Obviously you have the Republican Party dominating both house of congressional power and domination and yet they still can't remove him a lot but I think there are a couple of important butts right so one is the constitutional design at at that time is a a little bit different. And there's kind of this odd gap when it comes to filling a vacancy in the office of Vice President Right. So Johnson becomes president when Lincoln is assassinated but until the twenty fifth amendment. There's no mechanism for filling a vacancy in the office of Vice President until the next election. So he doesn't have is president so so the Congress the Senate that is considering voting to remove him is basically looking at him and looking under the succession laws at the time. The speaker of the House. Ben I think his first name Wade Benjamin Wade. Who's WHO's a pretty radical Republican in the kind of sumner Stevens Phillips School and for the Republican Party time it's dominant but it is very right so there's a real spectrum there is a radical wing of that party but they're not all thaddeus Stevens by any stretch and so some members of the Senate are sort of looking to that choice and it's such a dramatic choice that they decide they're not going to sort of totally upend the kind of organization of power in government by installing this entirely different figure bigger? We have a really different system right. And I think that's something that gets a little bit lost right so in the original constitution before the Twelfth Amendment you know. The electoral college is to ballots. And the person gets the most votes becomes the president and the second most becomes the vice president and the cigarettes because it was so the choice but He may WanNa debugged that programming before you right and so right but of course what it meant was the person who is the number two could be. Your political rival could be a member of a different political party and And so when they put impeachment in the Constitution. I think they did this knowing full. Well that the person to whom the power of the presidency would pass impeachment was successfully. Invoked in removal occurred. was somebody who is totally separately was not the president's handpicked the way the office functions today and then pre twenty Fifth Amendment in a circumstance like the Johnson case it would have been literally as though today if the president were removed from office. Nancy Pelosi became the president. That's not at all the world we live in a world in which the remedy is so much less dramatic because all that happens if the Senate votes to remove is power passes to the presence hand picked second in command who's been handpicked precisely for the purpose of serving his or her term if he or she cannot serve service so in the gentler remedy today than it was under the original constitution. In this case it seems to me that there is a really interesting. Ding fight happening. So there's obviously a partisan fight. I think there's an ideological fight. There's a political fight. I think there's a you know I'm biased here. I think but I think there's a fight over like the actual substance and rule of law and like whether the president can do whatever he wants like rig the next elections that he wins bought. There's also like an interesting article. One branch article two-branch Congress I the White House angle here and as someone who sort of both studies this as a scholar and also worked in. The White House is a lawyer like we're as a White House lawyer. What are you tend to be pretty like a jealous guardian of of the president's power? How do you see what's playing out right now in that context? I think you're right that when anybody who has spent some time inside the executive branch and maybe in particular in the White House it certainly gets into your DNA a little bit. This kind of reflexive defense of presidential presidential power. And I think that I you know I've been gone from government for a bunch of years now but I do still believe that it's important for all kinds of reasons to have a powerful president but that doesn't mean an unchecked after president and I think the only reason we haven't seen more sort of unilateral presidentialism in the last three years is because there has been just such chaos and disorder in that administration and and White House in particular but they have gotten their act together to do enough big things. I think Congress has through sort of inaction and paralysis relinquished. A lot of. It's less formal authorities in recent decades so congress passes laws. That's at the core of its article one powers but it does many many other things right conducting oversight of the executive branches one of them but obviously it appropriates an holds hearings. A Senate confirms nominees. It does many many things. I think that an important narrative the last couple of decades has been you know you've obviously seen in these kind of inverse trajectories of kind of an incentive presidential power and a decline in congressional power and I actually actually think that whatever the next couple of months bring with respect to this impeachment and it does seem like a must something very dramatic shifts the most likely courses impeachment in the House and acquittal in the Senate it has still been an important reassertion of Congressional Authority that the House has initiated and the way it has conducted these impeachment hearings so far I think that it has enormous symbolic consequence to impeach a president and I think Donald Trump appreciates is that right. So you saw this tweet a couple of weeks ago you know what was it. I didn't I never thought my name would be associated with an ugly word impeachment. The impeach me like a dog but he doesn't WanNa be impeached right. So you know people argue about whether this will help or hurt the president politically i. I don't know the answer to that. But even if if in some university it helps and politically he does not want to be impeached. Absolute doesn't WanNa be because this is going to be an asterisk next to his name forever right as the fourth president went to have these series impeachment proceedings begun in the third president in American history to have been impeached. I also think that there was this unified. Position of noncompliance is with Congressional Subpoenas and oversight requests during the early days of post. Two thousand eighteen right when Democrats took control of the House. And you know it starts to normalize this idea that you can simply ignore requests from Congress if the White House and other executive branch agencies. Just refuse to respond to congressional inquiries and even congressional Subpoenas I think just the last few weeks all of these officials acting on their conviction that law requires them to show up in response to a congressional subpoena. You know asserted hardens the lawn of congressional. Proof of the pudding is in the eating and that the practice the concrete example and the practice of people showing up even when they are political appointees resident which is in the case of Gordon. SUNLAND somewhat remarkable. That practice has kind of legal effect where it has a kind of effect about what Congress's authority is in. A sort of precedent. Were norm setting way. I think that's right. So there's you know the way law develops. I think this is true. Actually broadly but it certainly true when when it comes to disputes between the political branches between the Executive Branch and Congress is that it's very rarely courts that announced what the law is. There are are disputes. That occasionally make their way to the lower courts even more rarely there make their way up to the courts of appeals or very rarely to the supreme court but most of the time these disputes get resolved through accommodation and negotiation and practice and those practices kind of hardened into law at least players in these systems believe themselves to be bound to a degree. I mean sometimes they will say we want a definitive judicial ruling. But it's pretty rare that that happens and much of the time people conduct themselves under sort of the legal regime that is developed outside of course and so I do think that there is important precedent-setting function that just the last couple of weeks of witness testimony has created. Well this is. What's what's so interesting about this showdown right now between the White House and Congress on a variety of fronts in terms of subpoenaing witnesses and of documents right so like funny metaphor to say in this context but like the thing about marriage is Think about marriages would make some marriage amazing and also sometimes difficult was it like. There's no third branch to like. It's just the two of you you work it all out you don't you. Don't get to go for a ruling and if there's conflict you're like beef you gotta just like work it out. There's not like in a workplace where it's like maybe there's a boss or something like and in some ways it's like they're in a marriage in a weird way like the presidency and the Congress they have to kind of work it out between each other and as it's breaking down there like running to this sort of third entity more and more because they can't work it out partly. I think because of how sort of implacable the obstruction obstruction has been from the White House. But now it is before the courts and there's not actually a huge body of law in this precisely for that reason right so when I said the Congress has sort of relinquished a lot of it's less formal authorities authorities one example of that is that it used to sort of exercise what's referred to as an inherent contempt power so if a witness a refused to show up to testify or produce documents agreements. It would directly. Hold that witnesses were individual in contempt. Impose fines actually in prison in a cell underneath the capital individuals. The House in the nineteen twenty five thirty five and they had like some dude in a hotel room. I think that's what I'm just making that seconds later we'll leave it in. We'll take it out. It is thirty five. I don't think that's too good to Jack to Jack. They don't do that anymore. I don't think anybody really thinks they should revive the practice of sending the sergeant at arms to actually sees witnesses but John Bolton with a handcuffed to a radiator amazing image I there are people who are putting earth suggesting that Congress really. I don't see it happening. But when they decided that they needed to go to court to enforce their subpoenas that that was an admission that they that they lacked the inherent authority to do what they needed to get this referee. But that's part of the reason I think these last few weeks that have shown that Congress can actually do a lot without recourse to the courts. Let's have been important And yet as you say there are these high stakes judicial disputes. That are playing out now. So we have this ruling that this legal argument that the trump administration has made that certain high level White House officials enjoy absolute testimonial immunity that they don't even need to respond. To Congressional. Subpoenas is without any real basis in law or logic that everything in our constitutional tradition and constitutional history and the limited Supreme Court precedent on. This question makes clear if the president is he's not above the law then his advisers and to be. And so. That's the ruling. Out of a district. Gordon Don mcgann case and then there are a couple of these formerly unrelated conceptually sort of related cases involving the president's tax in which the courts have also said pretty categorically these arguments that the rules don't apply at all that would ordinarily require document production of a third party that they don't apply all because the president is involved and that's essentially the argument that the White House has been making. There's so let's talk about. There's three cases one of them doesn't have have to do with Congress it has to do with The Manhattan District Attorney. WHO's seeking the president's taxes as part of the pursuit of an investigation? The president's actual lawyer William Convoy as opposed to his like fake drifter Rudy Giuliani but like contemplate like. Actually I mean to the extent the president pays anyone I don't know but he actually gets paid me actually a rights rights legal briefs and does legal work. He's the one who made this insane argument. That like you know if you shot someone in Fifth Avenue you can investigate him. What's sort of take that aside for second because it doesn't quite play this like direct institutional institutional question about the two branches? There's there's judge Catan. Jebron Jackson's decision in the District Court which basically was over the matter Don mcgann could be lawfully subpoenaed by Congress. She she writes this one hundred and twenty page opinion. That's like absolute like he definitely can be an has to show up and I think this is an interesting conceptual point like she says. This idea of absolute community is nowhere in the constitution and our legal tradition. The idea you can block people now. There are privileges that obtain and basically she clears the path for him to show show up and say I'm not answering that question and invoke executive privilege but one of the things. I think that it's a technical point but important when the White House hasn't even done that. Right like there is a the privilege and the scope of executive privilege is the subject of a lot of debate. And it's unclear who adjudicates that Nian but they haven't gotten to that point because even before you get to that privilege they're just saying like no you can't talk to these people right it's inconsistent with. There's a there's limited case law on it but none of these privileges are absolute and there's no real authority for the proposition. So you don't have to show up at all to negotiate over what are and are not permissible subjects of inquiry and that's basically the the ruling there. Of course that's going to be appealed. Then there's the mazars which is now gone through. Two levels of the federal courts Went District Court saying you have to hand over the documents to the accounting firm rights trump intervenes to stop the firm from handing it over over. They say you have to hand it over. And then a three judge panel on the Circuit Court affirms that disaccord opinion. That's also now be petitioned the Supreme Court which they're going to here in a few weeks reconsider whether to take those cases in a couple of weeks. Yeah there's a good chance they'll take at least the DC case and maybe even the case as well let's talk about the law there because it just seems to to me like it just seems crazy to me in terms of the constitution that if Congress says we need to investigate the presence finances that the president can. I'd be like no you can't like it just seems nuts to me as as just a basic question of like I would personally like to know if like the Saudi kingdom pays him fifty million dollars a year in bribes. I don't think that's the case but like I would like to definitively rule that out same with the Turks like there's all sorts of things that I think I I would like to definitively establish about the president's finances and it just seems nuts to meet you set a precedent. The Congress cannot get those documents. Well so it's tricky because they haven't really explained what they're doing in those terms they haven't said we're investigating the president because we want to know if he's taking bribes because this whole power of oversight or inquiry that's the power of the Congress's exercising when it is doing this sort of thing thing it's not explicitly in the Constitution and There is no oversee the word oversight. It's just not there and yet. The Supreme Court from very early on has said the power of inquiry. Kore- is an important adjunct to Congress's enumerated powers the sort of heart of which is lawmaking and so typically when it engages in some kind of fact-finding and it explains it it is doing so in order to inform its consideration of passing laws or of overseeing agencies links up what it is doing often again to specific to lawmaking so here it said something like we're thinking about passing some ethics laws that apply to the president and so we kind of want to know what these tax return return shows up to inform our consideration of lawmaking judge row so drowned that he circuit to sense from that majority opinion right. She is a trump appointee. who filled cavenaugh seat right like all these judges of Federalist Society Conservative judge who went through with McConnell Stewart? John Yeah and I think now almost surely on Supreme Court shortlist in that Administration attrition and she writes this long opinion that says basically what the what Congress is trying to do is. They're saying they're thinking about lawmaking but really they're trying to investigate. And that's a law enforcement function and Congress is not a law enforcement entity that's law enforcement is executive is an executive branch function and part of that proposition is true of course row and other sort of conservatives of her stripe think that you can't have any kind of independent authority inside the executive branch that would investigate the president so it's a little bit heads. The president wins tails. You lose if it'd be especially fun. If she makes the argument that like Sivan's can have either probably would but so was weird about her descended. She says it's improper thinking about laws like that's not really what they're trying to do here. And there's a constitutional mechanism for investigating presidential misconduct and that is impeachment. And so it's this weird opinion because she writes it a couple of weeks ago when we were already in this phase of the impeachment inquiry but the request stems from some months ago and so the kind of facts on the ground when this congressional committee made its request Tomase ours. We're very different from the facts. Now which is the one reason I think. The Supreme Court might not take this because they would be arguing in the abstract about Congress's versus power absent and impeachment inquiry to request these kinds of so. Maybe they refile a request. That explicitly ties the interest to the impeachment inquiry and that changes the calculus. But those are that's basically the universe of arguments in that I mean again. I'm I'm I'm playing like ignoramus blowhard here but it just seems to me like we're considering a law to make the president disclose his taxes which we don't have in the books and good God we should in has. It's been habit in practice. We should just do it. We should know what the president's income and accounts are we know who he is due and who he gets payments from or she. And we're going to do that and like peers are. That's what we're doing. Is the factfinding for our legislative purpose to do that. It just seems like how could that you know again and all this stuff at a certain level I'm really cynical about higher courts sort of vote counting and legal realism and I think that ultimately will will see I mean. I think it's like they. You think they can count to five on the Supreme Court for everything. And that's why they're rushing to get up there and that's also whether making frankly lake pretty ludicrous arguments and a lot of these cases and that's not coming thing for me that's coming from the. The judge is the first impression who keep getting the cases and being like they haven't been ruling like well. You've got a point here. It's been like this is pretty ridiculous. Yeah and and not just judges but lawyers of all ideological thought that some of the arguments made by the administration by what has council pets have alone in some in his correspondence with Congress in some of these briefs and in the New York case. They're just not particularly defensible legal positions. And that's why I retain a little bit more idealism about the Supreme Court than you do but I it's hard for me to see trump cotton to five in either these cases but that's reading these words well so the point about what the approach is here. I mean Charlie savage a piece in the Times today that basically says they keep losing the courts but they're winning because they're delaying right right. Like the key point they keep getting the stays and it's hard to explain all this mechanisms and again like my mastery of civil procedure is terrible. It's it's it's not good. Well I mean it's fine for a layman but but but the point is that like they keep losing keep getting stays like it's just and that's why our taxes yet ten teach meant that early on. I think that shift seems to have made the decision that he will work with the universe. First of information that he's able to obtain without any judicial assistance and I'm not sure it may be that now they're holds a different view or maybe there's on the same page about it. I'm not sure. But in addition to all these substantive calls they have to make about going broad or going narrow to go back to our earlier conversation they have to make this procedural call all about whether it is worth trying to get some expedited judicial resolution of some subset of these legal questions in time to include some of this material potentially really in articles of impeachment or whether they just cut their losses in the courts and say it's too resource intensive to try and too time consuming. And who knows what we get at the end of the day anyway and maybe they are pessimistic about what the Supreme Court is likely to do and so they just say we're GonNa work with what we have and we have a lot right like we haven't said much about that but I definitely do think that there's a lot that has already been produced in conjunction with a couple of weeks of hearings. Well so that's there has been a tremendous amount of facts entered into evidence about Ukraine. I mean the president knew knew about the whistleblower complaint when he answers the phone in a bad mood. According to the testimony. Gordon sidelined and barks at him. I want nothing I want. Nothing I want no quid pro quo I I will nothing I want nothing. That's the turn it into an Abbot. emo Song that we played on the show is very funny. Also Ramon song we play Khalip later. Yes special bespoke spoke. Internet curation for my spouse so you know there's just a huge huge amount of facts and again I think I know the answer to this. I know I have my opinions and this is an area that you know this question law mortars like following it but like Aegis it just seems dead to rights on the facts like they did what they did it was an extortionate was a quid pro quo. It was whatever you WANNA call it like and it was done at a fairly systematic level level involving a whole bunch of people and they were kind of embarrassed and sketchy about it is my basic takeaway from the testimony. And if you take an active back up to the discussion we were having the beginning gaining about the ways that the folks who drafted the Constitution thought and talked about the kinds of offenses that would warrant impeachment. And I should say. I don't think that their views are fully controlling trolling right. If kind of question about the constitution means but I think it's always interesting and helpful and I don't think anything in the intervening couple of hundred years undermines any of this but that it was always always about offenses that are in their nature political that as we were talking about can only be committed by virtue of holding the office of the president. There's also all of this conversation about undue undo foreign interference. This is the tenor of someone. Like feels really sketchy. Actually don't want foreigners having anything to do with us and yet this idea that the they they were worried about foreign entanglements sort of corrupting a president who's sort of primary loyalty right should be to the United States right to the national interest. And that's you. You know the places that I thought that the testimony in the last couple of weeks was the most powerful Fiona Hill. Bill Taylor places where everyone seems to agree that this scheme of I'm trying to induce these political investigations and using this White House meeting and military it has leverage for doing that were corrupt and self interested in placed the president self interest chryst above the national interest. But they're also places where the testimony seems to suggest that they materially hurt America's national interests and that the idea of of being willing to undermine American foreign policy interests national security interests in furtherance of personal sort of political objectives. Feels like it gets gets very close to the core of what. The impeachment procedure was designed to target. There's also something really interesting about the testimony to me. which was this is like a nerdy interest of mine and I? It's a nerdy interest that I don't actually have much knowledge on but you know that's part of the course but basically between the civil war and through Teddy Roosevelt. There's like a civil service revolution revolution that happens in the United States. Federal Government in prior to that civil service revolution. Like it's wild. How corrupt all that is? Basically the president is like appointing individual. You'll like post masters which is like the service like the big part of the federal bureaucracy and the president just gives them out the way that Chicago mayor boss would give them out to support. It's a great job and like hugest get it to supporters and basically you come into office as the president with a huge Satchel of jobs. And then you take that Satchel Johnson. Can you just give it to your loyalists. Alah boss tweed. And that's essentially the way the entire federal government works until the sort of middle of the latter half of the nineteenth century. There's a series as of civil service reform. Big Pendleton actors like an eighteen nineties. Yeah so that things really. There's a bunch of changes but but ultimately what you get is this distinction between political and civil servants and a lot out of those people to testify were civil servants and part of it was fascinating to me was civil servants and civil service reform all that stuff a little obscure and a little arid but like you're seeing the importance of it to the functioning of like a modern state under the rule of law bureaucrats civil servants people that are not just like essentially tribally loyal or in a monetary attorney sense loyal to like the party bosses running the country. Who are just there to kind of serve the national interest across various administrations? That is a really important important feature and it also feels like in an existential sense. That's a little bit. What's on the table right now? Because the president's people are arguing like screw these bureaucrats the president sets the national interest and and if the president says that extorting dirt on his opponent is in the national interest then it is by definition and who the hell cares what George Kentucky to say right right and I think maybe canton can't in particular was sort of doing this thing that I think is responsive to what you just said which is that. He sort of says in Uganda. which very much says this you know? One of the things that we do is to promote rule rule of law values and kind of the political enforcement of the law in particular. We're talking about criminal investigations and prosecutions. But just in general that a lot out of the functions of government should be done in an apolitical. Fashion is of value that we are trying to in stand. She ate throughout the world and when we are sending from the very highest levels a message that runs directly contrary contrary to that we have absolutely no credibility and in some ways they're up. You're performing that value of impartial. Now they're not prosecutors but they're performing value of impartial enforcement of the law or at least impartial promotion of what they understand to be the national interest of the United States. The these are the official goals right to support. Report these anti-corruption measures in Ukraine. That's not their personal hobbyhorse right. That is the considered and articulated and public position of the United States government. But the president didn't come in and try to officially change that position right and he had. I actually believe these. Civil servants would have carried out their directives in the same way that they they might have disagreed. But if you know they're official policy change I do carry them out and that I think is what they're sort of demonstrating but absent that all this looked like with this. You know whatever ever domestic political errands thing is how hill described it that that had nothing to do with the national interest of the United States. And you know what the president didn't WanNa run this through the ordinary policy channels right because he understood and the people close to him understood that it was wrong right and I think. Actually there's there's actual proof that they would if he'd reoriented American policy policy in a sort of official sense like North Korea policy turned hugely one eighty on a dime essentially and there's a million civil servants who had to go and work and set up that summit. No now some of them. I think probably thought this is pretty nuts. I don't done the groundwork for this. But they went there and they said did the Legwork for that summit and there were translators and they were subject matter experts and there were a regional experts. All of whom put their shoulders to the wheel to make sure that the summit with Kim Jong Hoon happened seem thing with northeastern Syria. And the withdrawal there like like there was a lot of yelping about it particularly by folks were retired and some people you know from the armed services on the record like ultimately when the president has made these decisions even when they've run anathema to what I think a lot of people like people do. Do the president went. Yeah they care they they they carry that out the other thing that you know that one thing I think they're like we haven't haven't talked really about is just that the scheme was about and the misconduct is about in this ties back a bit to the founding era history but it's about an election right it is about interference in some sense with an American election and that also seems like a really important factor when you're sort of evaluating how serious the misconduct is how it tracks acce the purposes of impeachment right. So there's this George Mason quote so this is when the early on in the convention there are discussing whether even to have impeachment for the president at all and he says something like Shell the man who has practice corruption eruption and by that means procured his appointment be suffered to escape punishment. Right because if all you have is election for years later what if somebody gets in there through corrupt opt means right. Impeachment is the only out and that seems like a critical fact about this that the purpose here was to obtain some kind of advantage in in this looming presidential election and I can state just like descriptively as someone who talks to members of Congress a lot that that's what got them on board the the thing that made it possible for there to be the votes for this which there weren't for longtime was evidence that like. Oh He's trying to rig the next election if you do not do everything you can to send the message. That's not okay. He will use his powers to try to rig the next election and the presents free powerful and he's very travel foreign affairs and he has a bunch of irregular channels already established with the Saudis and with the Turks and God knows who else and like if that was the thing that got him aboard. They did not want to do yeah. Nancy Pelosi didn't WANNA do it. House leadership definitely didn't WanNa do it and the frontline members in those forty seats. Don't WanNa do it. And the thing that converted them was precisely that it was like this is break glass stuff enough because if you let them get on with this I'm like we can't have a free and fair election and with so deeply disturbing is the president's continued insistence that this was a perfect phone call suggests to me that he thinks the conduct was okay that he has engaged in it previously that he will engage in it again. Right it was a perfect phone call. I did nothing wrong. And that I don't know if it's affecting the thinking talking of members of Congress but from the perspective of the imperative of doing everything possible to communicate the seriousness of the violation that seems critical. Well I think that's probably the most important lesson all here So I would go another hour but I think we'll take the second hour. offline perfect taken taken back to Brooklyn of CIA is a professor at Cardozo Law School. She is a legal analyst and commentator for ABC News. She's the Co.. Oh host of the fantastic podcast strict scrutiny which I love and listened to Not Out of any sense of spousal obligation but because I learned a ton from it so you should definitely check that out wherever podcasts. She's the love of my life. My children might be human being on earth to cut out. And we've been together. We've been together since nineteen years old and it was so great to have you back. Come back anytime you can also come my show. Maybe it will win to okay thanks. I'll see you tonight and once again. Great thanks to my my life partner my life Cha Cha keep it said something very funny afterwards services that we recorded this on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving we had actually like make childcare arrangements. So she'd come into the city and then after she's like I just realized I have a sneaking suspicion that it was. It's very hard to book someone to do. A podcast for Thanksgiving and that's why which was not true. Actually in fact it was the the opposite we were like pressing to get her as soon as possible bowl and I booked her once and she put me off a week. She says she couldn't fit me and her schedule. So just for the record but again like I said you can listen to strict scrutiny. which great podcast about the federal courts and particularly the The Supreme Court you can get your podcast also. If you like that conversation you'd go back and listen to the first one. The kitten idea about a year ago which is called the rule of law in the era of trump with kate. So you can search that. In the archives of with pod at sort of interesting listened to that just to see how many of those issues endure and how far we've come and how far we haven't come in certain ways also a reminder that the the final with pod show December eighth seven. PM Town on New York City. Tony Kushner young phenom. Playwright Jeremy Harris who's written slave play which she should google look up which is really really controversial in mind blowing and wild wild piece of art. The two of them in conversation in front of a thousand folks. It's going to be a lot of fun. You can get tickets. TICKETMASTER DOT COM. Search Chris Hayes and go oh click on one of the blue dots have a lock and enter podcast as your special discount code to get thirty percent off the listed price we would love to see you. Their email us with pottage. How did you meet DOT com send us tweets with the Hash tag with Bod? Let us know what you're thinking about the show. Yes you want to hear from things you like things. You didn't like any of that. We love to hear it. Why is this happening is presented by MSNBC MSNBC AND NBC News produced by all in team and features music by Cooper you can see more of our work including links to things we mentioned here going to NBC News Dot Com slash wisest happening? Hey It's Chris Hayes. If you're a fan of my podcast why is this happening subscribed to get the latest episode. Every Tuesday spread the word. Your family and friends and rate US ON APPLE PODCASTS. Five stars if you're into it.

president Congress Supreme Court White House Senate Donald Trump United States Andrew Johnson Senate president vice president bribery Vice President Right Richard Nixon Vice President White House Kate Shah tiffany executive Executive Branch TICKETMASTER
Back to School: Stopping?

Start Here

25:26 min | 5 d ago

Back to School: Stopping?

"It's Wednesday August fifth, and this is not a drill we start here. Several students are back in class at least they were they. Second grader has tested positive for the corona virus. What happens classrooms had to shut down within days of reopening president trump is cool with voting by mail in the state work votes by mail. Florida's got a Republican governor and it had a great Republican go your guide to how ballots are being counted this year and why the president's rhetoric is changing. And a major world capital just got ripped apart. We saw windows blown out the facade. The building's ripped off Karl's blackened. What caused an explosion to decimate they wrote in near the city coach from Mir. From ABC News this start here I'm Brad Milkey. You might have seen clips of this interview between President, trump and Jonathan Swan from axios on Hbo I. The figure I look at his death and death is going up now a thousand a day. If you look at, earth, yet is going up again. Let's Daily death take a look at some of these charts I love to, and will they talked about a lot of things Here. Here's case death. Oh you're doing death is cases I'm talking about death is a proportion of population. That's where the US is really bad well, much worse than South Korea Germany. Etcetera. Do that you have. To go by. You have to go by where look here is the United States you have to go by the cases, the area which everyone seized on it was the conversation about covid nineteen in America. Think it's under control I'll tell you what how thousand Americans are dying a day dying. That's true and you it is what it is but that doesn't mean we aren't doing everything we can it is. What is there was immediate reaction to this and The reason that line got so much attention was not just because it was a slip of the tongue, but because it raises the most basic of questions in this country, is this an emergency where Americans need to drastically change our lives or his the covid nineteen pandemic just this unavoidable thing to the point where we need to start living our lives as normal just accept that it's their nowhere. Is that question more important this week in schools A lot of of school is beginning around Labor Day in this country maybe late August that is not the case in a ton of school districts including in. Georgia in one school district alone nearly three hundred teachers and staff are out sick either infected by the virus or exposed to it as of this week classes or underway in the Atlanta area kids are at their desks and I want to start the day with ABC Steve Olson Saami, WHO's based in Atlanta Steve. What of the first days of school been like? Strange. Strange from two different standpoints, one C. student students, and masks in some cases into seeing a lot of students without masks as if there was not a pandemic, I'm a bit concerned. I heard on the first half of the children over wearing their mask you're half. A dozen. Completed my work And everything went through. But I wasn't really happy with the people who are wearing masks. I'M NOT GONNA lie it looks a little apocalyptic. The other thing that's also different is is people are nervous. Parents are nervous sending their kids to school but some parents feel they have to say. I haven't made the decision to. Put their lives in danger. You can't even give us a virtual. They don't have daycares to send these children to some of these parents have to both work and and they've decided to take the risk given that the school systems are taking certain precautions and hoping for the best face masks here in the county are mandatory for teachers and staff but only recommended for students. I will tell you that something that just happened. We've just learned in Cherokee County place that started school this week that a second grader has tested positive for the corona virus and because of this. The school system is now having to quarantine the entire classroom, second grade class of twenty students and the teacher quarantine at home for two weeks this is going to be the new normal for students as they head back to school. If they're actually attending school in classrooms or the differences in the classroom Steve or do they go beyond that 'cause, we've seen photos of kids. Crammed into hallways, they would've normal day some of the wearing masks but. Are things changing just at the desk where the kid is Sort of going to parts of the. You know what's what's what's difficult here is that? Every school system is sort of doing things differently they're all on their own. There is no option before us. Without risk. But after reading their plans, I feel comfortable in this decision. Whenever possible. I will allow local school leaders to determine the best plan for their local schools in the state of Mississippi the governor. There has now ordered all children to wear masks in schools and all people who live in the state to wear masks in public for two weeks. I will also sign an executive order today to delay the start of the academic year for Grades Seven through twelve. In a handful of counties. They're a handful of counties that certainly reach that threshold of being hot spots the Atlanta Public School district for the most part kids aren't going back into the classrooms Dekalb County Georgia same thing you want to go back to school or do you like being on the computer? Marijuana. 'cause I am sniping. So. There are number school districts that are teaching virtually. Some are doing what they're what they call a hybrid. Some, students are in the classroom others are not or they switch it up based on a schedule of some sort. and. So all that makes me wonder Steve Is there a threshold in a given school and it could give community where authorities would go. You know what? This is a failed experiment we're rolling back because no, one would want to do that. But is there a certain number of cases or certain classes are foreign teams it which reached before you do say we're shutting them the school district or all the schools in the state. No I what we're hearing, what we're hearing from a lot of different school systems is that they're trying to be flexible. It won't be if they test positive, they will test positive. We will have students that'll test positive that's going to occur. We've had during the summer and they are preparing for these types of actions, quarantine classrooms, contact tracing, and potentially in some instances closing down schools while they clean areas where they know an infected person or student or teacher may have been. In Indiana a junior high school student went to school on the first day with a pending. Cova test learning the results were positive while at school the staff isolating the student and alerting those who have come into close contact seeing students who are testing positive at schools in in Indiana in Georgia to see this level of concern and reasonable concern right off the bat suggests that it's going to be a very, very, very difficult fall school season. Every tiny prey who like five more day this own. Yet really in a lot of ways, this is just a sample size. This is a smattering of school districts were about to see in the coming weeks. What it looks like in states across the country is the school schedule doesn't really kick into higher gear Steve Saami in Atlanta thanks for the time. Sir. Next on start here. It could be the difference between Election Day and election week your definitive guide to voting by mail and why President Trump just had to change course. The. That is we get back on the road the stops we make seem more special than before between those stops there shell stop fill up with their best fuel ever save every time with the fuel rewards, program and snacks and essentials that can save you even more pump can visit fuelrewards, dot com, or download the APP to join. You'll never pay full price for gas again, that's just a few of the way shell helps you make the most of the stop you need to make see full terms and conditions. Fuel rewards dot. com. These. Days News comes out of Washington. So fast, it can be hard to keep up. I just don't think this is going to play out the way everybody thinks it's going to play out. We're getting a prediction look we need special music for this I'm ABC News Political Director Rick Klein, join me with ABC's chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl every week as we break down the facts and turn to Washington insiders with tough questions on the powerhouse politics podcast. How can the American People Trust? The President says things over and over again Listen for free on apple podcasts or your favorite podcast APP. One other area where the president is super fired up is ballots in the mail when you do all Mellon voting ballots. You're asking for fraud remember because of covid nineteen states are really trying to ramp up programs. This year will keep voters from standing in big long lines together on election day but ominous tones, and without any evidence, the president has argued that this is going to lead to illegitimate election results, which in turn raises the question what would happen if election day comes and goes, and we don't know the winner for days or weeks. Experts say that is a possibility. The scarier scenario they say is were that delay leads to candidates publicly questioning the vote tallies even after their confirmed will yesterday in a bizarre turnaround president trump tweeted that mail ballots are legitimate but really only in one particular state ABC's legal analysts. Kate Shaw is a constitutional law professor. She's been studying this issue. Kate could president now says, Florida is what like Florida's chill now what happened here? I have to believe that his people have realized that he must win Florida in order to win reelection. Florida's got a grit Republican governor and it had a great Republican governor Scott Rhonda Santa's Rick. Scott to great governors. And over a long period of time, they've been able to get the absentee ballots done extremely professionally Florida's different from other states Florida has a lot of elderly people living in it and president trump. I am sure with like the votes of those Floridians, I, and a lot of them are going to be deterred from going into vote in person probably correctly. But by taking such aim without any foundation in evidence at absentee voting, I think the president has successfully polarized. This issue that his base is now less likely to turn out to vote absentee Then our Joe Biden's voters, and that actually is a real problem for president trump I'll be an absentee voter. We have a lot of absentee voters and it works where in favor of absentee, but it's much different and can you kind of break down the president's argument for me because it was drawing this distinction for a while that? They're really two types of ballots in the mail. There's the kind that you have to request and there's the kind the disc get delivered to you right. So absentee ballots, every state has a version of voting by mail, but you have to request that Dallas some states you have to have a reason to request that ballot other states it just gets sent to you. So why is that such a big deal to president trump or why was it such a big deal before yesterday? You know? So people sometimes do use the term. Voting and voting by mail interchangeably and I don't think that's wrong. But it is true that that as a technical matter absentee voting refers to voting where you have to request an absentee ballot either by showing some special circumstances or need a in an increasing number states without any excuse at all. But you have to make the request absentee voting I signed an executive order about an hour ago. That will allow every registered voter in the state of California to receive a mail in ballot. Vote by mail typically refers to those states where everyone is eligible automatically vote by mail and states either automatically male everybody, an absentee ballot application or in some states actually send the ballot every registered voter in the state So those are the true vote by mail states and a number of states have been holding elections that way for years, and you know what there hasn't been any rampant fraud in million voting. As, you say, Kate, like these are real balance. These are not application somewhere these these are as real as the things you fill out in the voting booth and people have said Oh I got to sent to me like one under one name and one under my name or unregistered voters. So does the president of a case that there's the potential for shenanigans there I don't think there are any. Legitimate reasons to worry. Honestly, you know democracy is messy so whether we're talking about voting in person where you sometimes end up having been purged from the voter rolls or you show up to vote in one place and you're told you need to go somewhere else. So that happens and it's not fraud. It's just a mess of democracy and with Maitland voting that kind of thing happens to. So people get. To ballots or no ballots or a ballot goes to the wrong address showing irregularity. There's no doubt about that Commissioner Schmidt said, they found no clear evidence of fraud in the small sample check they did the records we provided them most of the issues he said, we're human errors such as a poll worker scanning wrong name a person signing in the wrong spot or a son voting in his dead father's. Place but the thing about these states administer their elections mostly by mail is that they have very robust fraud checks on the back end. So they mail out ballots and when they receive these ballots back, they check for signature matches. They make sure that the actual ballots are the ones they mailed out as opposed to some you know imposter ballot that the president and attorney. General, BAR, have suggested might be. Out, there. I've never seen any evidence that these things are real but if they were states have established processes for identifying and weeding out fraud it, which makes you think like just because somebody gets two ballots in the mail does not mean we're seeing lots of people fill out to ballots or three dollars like does not have him, and in fact, if anyone tried the election officials would disqualify the. Second and third ballots. So I do think it's important to underscore that the president suggesting that this is a problem doesn't make it real and he's not pointed to shred of evidence that this is actually any kind of widespread problem in Nevada today for the first time, voters had to bail or drop off their ballots and in Georgia the Republican. Secretary of state shifting the election to almost entirely by mail. The run thing though that people should be aware of is there is a very real possibility that we're not gonNA know on election night who the winner of the election is, and that's because this election is just gonNA look different from every other election in the modern era states are moving very significantly vote by mail. So let me give you one example Wisconsin usually has about six percent of its population. Vote by mail in the April presidential primary it had seventy five percent of voters choose to vote by mail. So these are states that just have never handled this this volume of mail in voting before, and it's just gonNA take them time to tabulate ballots in two, thousand, sixteen, a record one in five Americans voted by mail. November. Numbers could far surpass that. I. Think it could approach one, hundred, million. The Electric Yeah I think I think it could get that high. It could even go above that and a lot of states Brad. It's actually the case that state officials aren't allowed to start counting absentee ballots until election day. So there's essentially no way for all of these dates to count all of their absentee ballots on Election Day operating in this unprecedented environment I want to have the result of the election I don't WanNa be. Waiting around for weeks and months, and literally potentially if you're really did it right years because you'll never know now that doesn't mean there's no chance. We'll know the winner on election night. If the margins are big enough, you know there may be projections that are very sound but everyone should be prepared for the possibility that this is really going to be an election day. This is going to be an election week for possibly even an election month we'll just based on all these points you've made so far this spill out a scenario and you can tell me if it's just wildly off base. Or not, but I'm wondering if Democrats are more on board with mail in balloting, they are applying for them at high rates and that is we've seen so far and Republicans aren't in some part because president trump has discouraged them up till now from from thinking of them as legitimate is there scenario where on election night all the Republicans have shown up in person during the day they voted for president trump. We see those numbers first and then slowly but surely the numbers coming through the mail totally legitimate ballots but they are now propping up Joe Biden and over the course of hours or days, president. Trump is an hey, it looks like I'm getting robbed here is that a crazy thing to envision? So I think that's a very distinct possibility and the president can make whatever accusations he wants. He's already sort of laid the groundwork. So I think that what you're suggesting is actually pretty likely to come to pass on election night and I think what most matters is how we respond to it but Florida's done a great job and we have total confidence of you mail in your ballot in Florida it's going to matter and when we think about a state like Florida, it may be the case. That elderly Republican voters are just too scared to go to the polls to vote in person you'll campaign puts emails telling people to vote by our daughter-in-law lower trump. She'd Robo calls in California saying it's safe and secure mail voting and the president, and his team are realizing that and that is why we are seeing his rhetoric begin to change around absentee voting. We saw what happened in Tulsa when Elvis in the trump reelection team was like, Oh, no people are not showing up like we thought they would Kate Shaw given us lots of think about thanks so much for the insight gate. Thanks Brad. One Minute it was some flames and a plume of smoke the next it was a full scale disaster. Yesterday they Lebanon an explosion tore through the city obliterating I'll just a factory along the coastline everything around it. ABC Senior foreign correspondent Ian Panel now in. This truly just had to be seen to be believed. It was so large. Can you describe how devastating this blast was yet? I've seen many explosions. Ever seen anything like this the scenes at truly truly shocking. That was. Underway ask some building which is down in the area of Beirut they reproduce very little to pull. It is super important and is normally very busy. From at least one video taken by someone buys if there was some small designations taking place in crackly happiness suggestion luther perhaps it was fireworks. The next minute that is just the biggest explosion you've ever seen. People video this from multiple angles they sold the fire was taking place. And she uh, see this enormous. Tom. Massive. Explosion. This huge mushroom cloud that just burst out from the site and seems to swarm Pov- large parts of Beirut. Here the reaction these. Views of people's gaps people shrieking. I saw something clash and I put it here. Anymore. Thing just explodes everyone the damage the radius of it was truly shocking the door to move the Goth facades coaching. Smith filling the streets that was strewn with debris glass everywhere. Blooded people. Nearby Bloom during through these clouds of smoke desperately trying for help. Hospitals. Around, and wear hearing significant numbers of people killed and injured. It. Okay. So what was it in? That's cool is the key question though seemed like it based on the explosion I've met with some of our great generals and they just seem to feel that it was this was not a some kind of a manufacturing. explosion type of event. Now, media suspicions are the given Beirut's history and given the tensions between Israel and Hezbollah the militant group that controls the government in Lebanon. The that could have been some kind of foul play really seems to put a lot of distance between themselves and that theory, and in fact, the Interior Minister and other government ministers are suggesting that it was a catastrophic accident rather than a conspiracy the perhaps a warehouse there had been used to store highly explosive ammonium nitrate those who don't know much eight is a key component in homemade bombs are used in. Explosive Devices, it was used by Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. So it can be absolutely devastating. They've been suggestions those -nificant amounts of this secure, but not safely at the site that could explain why this explosion was quite. So this was a seems to be according to them. They would know better than I would, but they seem to think it was a attack. It was a bomb of some kind. Yes. I was GONNA say e immediately in Beirut of all places there are suspicions because this is the home of Hezbollah right it is. It has been in the sites of terrorist groups, a foreign governments even. So what happens next for this city and how much of that depends on whether it could have been deliberate these will be devastating. Lebanon has been percent by corrupt government after corrupt government banking system has collapsed people struggled to get hold of money. Unemployment is rampant public authorities. Public services here are not good. Last month, there was almost no state power where people relying on generators room struggling to keep up with the Karoon virus infections in the country, the hospitals full, and then they get this on top. Will this lead to substantial change in Lebanon through these very much needed? All will actually lead to further the division and chaos in the country, which is what many people fair we're seeing lots of offers of assistance from the US State Department even interestingly for news railly's which I think is unlikely to be accepted but perhaps this can be used to turn something positive in the country to to try and build something out of his case because the devastation as I say is the Last thing any country needs but Lebanon really cannot cope with outweighs moments and it may be so much pressure that the system completely collapses yet, and we talk about explosions in foreign countries where you know devastation is felt hundreds of yards away and and people are killed blocks away. This is something completely different miles upon miles of devastation in a world capital Ian Panel breaking down. Thanks so much. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. And one last thing serious question, which will get I a vaccine or some clorox wipes. Earlier this year. ABC. News spoke to the president of Clorox who knowledged how supermarkets had just run out of disinfectant wipes and here the big question. When he walk into a store in, they are there you can buy them whenever you need them. Yes, I. Know that's the question on everybody's mind. We will expect improvement coming this summer. It will all depend on the demand will summer is here and you still cannot reliably walk into a store and buy them in fact now, the company saying they might not be stocked up until next year they say a couple things are at play here one. This used to be a big product, but not a huge one on the span of a few weeks demand rose sixfold and still hasn't gone down fortunately they're being snagged just about as soon as they hit shelves many times within minutes to is the chemical here. That's the problem. Anyone can make a type of bleach. The issue is the fabric involved is also used to make surgical masks hospital gowns. It's tough for any company even clorox to get their hands on this stuff in the meantime, people are turning to competitors or even homemade solutions which can get dicey when star improvising with cleaning chemicals. Never want you touching your eyes and mouth at this point particularly not if you've been pouring bleach on next boxes start here tomorrow he this up with a rating and review on Apple podcasts. You really does help other people find the show more all these stories, ABC, News Dot com, or the APP I'm Brad Milkey. Um.

president trump Florida Steve Olson Saami ABC Brad Milkey Kate Shaw ABC News fraud Georgia United States Beirut Jonathan Karl ABC Joe Biden California apple
100 Facts  (and 24 special guests)!

Your Brain on Facts

41:25 min | 5 months ago

100 Facts (and 24 special guests)!

"Welcome to the one hundred episode of your brain on facts. Thank you so much for being with me. Got a different format. Today we are doing one hundred fast facts and not only. Do we have a guest? We have twenty four guests. Let's get started. My Name's Moxy. And this is your brain on facts in the first version of Toy Story. Woody wasn't a toy cowboy. He was ventriloquist's dummy and he was a creepy sadist. Who at one point pushes buzz? Light year out a window. The standard-issue female CPR training dummy sometimes called recession. Got Her face from the death mask of a young woman who drown in the Seine in Paris. The death mask was made so that her family could hopefully identify her later but local artists began buying copies to act as inspiration. An expert sword fighter once stole a corpse that they plan to leave in the bed of their lover when they sprung her from a convent which they would burn down behind them. The swashbuckler is name. Julie WTI age nineteen fellow brainiacs. I'm Dan Pugh and I'm Shana. Harrison Rob Peter to pay. Paul means to take from one person in order to pay another. But did you know in the eighteen? Hundreds there was a slang term based on this phrase instead of Rob Peter to pay Paul One might say to maneuver the apostles if you like whimsical adventures check us out on bunny trails. A word hits three podcast every Wednesday wherever you listen the movie. Heaven's gate put United Artists Studios out of business. After the directors demands tripled the budget antique trains that required a different gauge of track to be laid. Two hundred and fifty extras taught to Ice Skate. With old timey skates and twelve hundred extras. Who had to be taught to ride horses? Use whips and drive wagons by day. Six of filming. They were already five days behind schedule. The best selling video game hero. Mario was originally called jump. Man The name. Mario came from the landlord of Nintendo's warehouse. The British navy still had daily rations of rum for sailors until July. Thirty First Nineteen Seventy speaking of the seventies the US Navy issued their sailors bell-bottoms until nineteen. Ninety nine my husband still has his complete with his last name. Stenciled on the back. Hey Everyone Christine Castle beauty here from footnoting history with fashion fast fact to celebrate the one hundredth episode of your brain on facts. When John Quincy Adams was inaugurated as President of the United States on March fourth? Eighteen twenty five. He set a fashion precedent. You see Adams was the first president to wear long trousers to his inauguration instead of the traditional knee breeches. Now you know. The man who created flaming hot cheetos was a custodian. Frito lay at the time. He took some unflavored cheetos home and added a Lotta Street corn seasoning. He's now an executive at PepsiCo. There are more plastic. Flamingos in the world. Than REAL FLAMINGOS. There are more tigers in captivity in the US than there are wild in the rest of the world and they're also more juggle OHS fans of the insane clown posse than there are polar bears. Now it'd be a good time to mention that I am not liable for your therapy bills. The precursors to rollercoasters. We're called Russian mountains. They were sled rides down an icy track. Sometimes two hundred feet or sixty two meters tall there were of course no safety features oxy. It sounded here from Andy's podcast focused. Sorry we spring but I'm on location in the Library of Congress snuck into the Forbidden Knowledge Section. Anyway my fact is that brand. Is Superstition. Gut Addiction the shelf superstition. Such as prayer is an irrational belief that magical object action influences the outcome of events the six flags amusement park chain began with one park in Texas. That was only open for forty five days. It's first year. Six flags referred to the six nations that at one point or another governed Texas between the one million people who died as a direct result of the Irish potato famine and the two million who emigrated the population of Ireland is still not back at pre-famine levels and Frank Martin Luther King Junior and Barbara Walters were all born in the same year. Nineteen twenty nine. I know that circulates as a meam. But it's still remarkable to think of those people all in the same timeline. Congratulations on one hundred episodes. This is Kate Shaw from strange animals. Podcast with a strange animal fact. The tallest giraffe ever measured was nineteen point three feet tall for five point eight eight meters but the tallest mammal known was probably Sarah Sarah Theory. It lived about twenty three million years ago and was related to the Rhinoceros stood an estimated eighteen feet high at the shoulder for five point five meters with a neck that was probably another seven feet long or about two meters American. Samoa was one of the only places on earth not to see a single death from the nineteen eighteen Spanish blue because the governor there took the reports. He was hearing over the radio very seriously and blocked all incoming ships from making port. It's known as the Spanish flu because Spain who was neutral during World War. One was the only country freely reporting on it whereas all other European nations were keeping the severity of their flew on the down for the last hundred years. Many people in South Korea have believed that leading a fan on overnight in a closed. Room will kill you in your sleep either by suffocating you or freezing you. While the exact origin of the belief is unclear suspicion has fallen on the South Korean government. Starting the rumor during the Nineteen Seventies Energy Crisis. Get people to use less electricity. Only two of the one hundred ninety five countries in the world have a flag. That doesn't have the colors. Red Blue or White Jamaica and Mauritania and only one Nepal has a flag. That is not a quadrilateral this is a larger and will from bringing the weird. And we're bringing you a fast fact and beecher discovered the placebo effect as a medic in world war. Two after running out of painkilling killing morphine. Your replace it with a simple saline solution but continued telling the wounded soldiers. It was morphine to come to his surprise. Almost half of the soldiers reported that the inert saline solution actually reduced or erase their pain. The founder of the Lindt Chocolate Company was killed in one thousand nine hundred eighteen. Not In the great more but when one of his funded boilers exploded. There's a car race. Called the twenty four hours of Lemons Not Lemons Lemons. The cars have to be purchased and repaired for under five hundred dollars not including the cost of mandatory roll cage kill switch and fire suppression systems. Unsportsmanlike behaviour receives creative punishments like having to walk lap while carrying a sign. That says I'm a big jerk. Hi this is heavier with pretend. And the new podcast called criminal conduct. Did you know that lying is among the most sophisticated and demanding accomplishments? The human brain children have to learn how to live and people with certain types of frontal lobe. Injuries may not be able to do it. The Australian Aboriginal Language of Gouveia Ger has no words left and right instead speakers referred to things based on the Four Cardinal Directions. So you might be holding your pen in your East hammed unless you turn around. Now it's in your west hand orange. The colour is named after orange the fruit before the word was adopted the Color Orange was called yellow red in ancient Egypt. Women who are they might be pregnant. Would pee on wheat and barley seats. The hormones and pregnancy would help the grain to sprout and which grain sprouted would tell you the gender of the baby unbelievably. It's about seventy percent accurate. Hey this is. Kate from ignorance was bliss. Congratulations on one hundred episodes. I have for you hesitant. Warren G harding was only an office for a couple of years. But in that time he racked up a reputation as one of the least popular president ever he was also a famous letter writer specifically to his mistress her name was Carey Phillips. They wrote hundreds of letters back and forth including some that. Were very sexually frank toward the end. They even had code words for their body parts. He referred to his own men. Leave it as Jerry. And he referred to her another regions as Mrs Powder Sohn. Didn't you feel better before you knew that in eighteen forty seven? A showboating surgeon performed a leg. Amputation in twenty five seconds. The patient died. The surgeon had cut two fingers off of his assistant in the process. Who got an infection and died and a spectator died of a suspected heart attack. It is the only known surgery in history with a three hundred percent mortality rate. We'd all Madonna's formal costume in Star Wars. The Phantom menace is very similar to that of the last queen of Mongolia who was executed by the Soviet Union in an attempt to destroy Mongolian culture. To study how our words for colors affect our perception of colors. One researcher raised his daughter without identifying the color. Blue to her when she was asked at age four. What color of the sky was she said it was white? Did you know that the first sex symbol in animation was inspired by black women and talking about betty? Boop I'm Josh yourself or the show self-assertion and you're listening to your brain facts in the nineteen twenty s woman named Esther Jones. Credos stays for herself. Baby Esther ended to use some childlike noises and boots to supplement her show. She was a jazz h flapper. Her show is so successful as she inspired. Another woman named Helen. Kane to adopt alive her at Helen. Kane did not give credit to Ester Jones. Helen Canes Performance was great successful and later a man named Max Fleischer saw her acts inspired to create the caricature of the jazz as flapper. We know today as Betty Boop so Helen Kane. A white woman took her. I D is from Ester Jones black women litter have them stolen by Max Fleischer? Polish man just goes to show. That goes around comes around. Pineapples do not grow on palm trees but rather on three foot high shrubs which take eighteen to thirty six months to grow one fruit apiece according to estimates from the US Geological Survey the US used four point. Five Giga tons of cement in the twentieth century. Compare that to the six point six GIG tons of cement China used between twenty eleven and twenty thirteen due to the structure their larynx and whether or not they have an official bone or a ligament cats that per like house. Cats lynxes can't roar and cats that can roar like lions and Jaguars can't per. Hello this is emily from. Where does it go bob? Ross filmed around four hundred episodes of the joy of painting and he made over a thousand paintings on the show at that time. Three paintings per episode now. Where did these paintings go? One painting per episode would tend to go to Annette Kowalski. It was a family friend and discover of Bob Ross and the remaining paintings over a thousand of them are stored in a warehouse in Herndon. Virginia owned by Bob Ross Inc. the company has no interest in selling them at this time. That's a big part of why it's very difficult to get your hands on an original Bob. Ross Painting Violet. Jessop was a stewardess and nurse aboard White Star Line passenger ships. She survived the sinking of the titanic which hit an iceberg the Britannic which had a sea mine and the Olympic which collided with a British warship. She was given the name. Miss Unsinkable archaeopteryx the earliest species that scientists can classify as a tree lived about three hundred and fifty million years ago. Sharks however can be traced back four hundred million years ago so sharks are older than trees. The first public artificial ICE RINK. London's Glacier area was opened in eighteen forty one but had no ice skated around on a layer of pig. Fat Salts and Culver Sulfate. It fell out of favor due to the smell. A mechanically frozen rink was still thirty. Six years away when inventor John Jim? Gee Re purposed a device he'd made to freeze meat for transoceanic shipment. This is Devon host of human circus journeys in the Medieval world. And I'm here to tell you that. The Mongol invasion of central Europe was felt as far away as England's fish markets or at least according to Thirteenth Century Chronicler. Matthew Paris. It was he wrote that the Mongols arrival dissuaded buyers from crossing the North Sea Yarmuth and that haring prices there plummeted as a result. A good time to be a fish eater not so much a fisherman jetski Jacuzzi Kleenex and thermos are all brand names as our cellophane escalator trampoline. Dry Ice Velcro chapstick laundromat kerosene Zipper. Hovercraft videotape dumpster and Yoyo the process of a brand name coming to stand for all similar products is generis position. There is a unit of length called a smoot equal to five foot seven inches or one point seven meters which is named for one Oliver smoot in nineteen fifty eight some students in an MIT fraternity had smoot lay down on the Harvard Bridge. Get up move the length of his own body and lay down again as part of a pledge prank for those who care to know the bridges three hundred sixty four point four. Smooths LONG PLUS OR MINUS ONE EAR. Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin once received an eleven minute long standing ovation at a Communist Party conference. Everyone in the room was too terrified of being the first person to stop. Clapping the man who did sit down. I was arrested the next day and spent ten years in prison. This is Paul from the podcast. And I am here to talk to you about cute cuddly little harmless wombats in particular the wombats large Dermal Shield also known as it's but when pursued by a predator. Wombat will run into its burrow and use. It's very sturdy and fortified backside as a Defensive Shield at the opening of the borough evidence suggests that wombats used their rumps for offensive purposes to people who study wombats have found remains with Fox's and Tasmanian devils nearby with injuries that suggest that the one that used its but to crush the skulls of their persistent enemies against the top of the Berle. They're still cute. But maybe not as cuddly little or harmless as you'd Think Classic Cartoon Antagonist. Tom and Jerry premiered on February tenth. Nineteen forty in a short called. Who's gets the boot they were originally named Jasper and Jinx Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy author. Douglas Adams once worked as a bodyguard for a family of oil tycoons and Qatar and appeared on Monty. Python's flying circus twice. Jumping Frenchmen of Maine is a bizarre rare characterized by unusually extreme startled response including repeating the words and actions of others. Not only will sufferers react with exaggerated movements to surprising stimuli. They also become powerless to refuse. Commands for a brief time. It was first observed in French. Canadian loggers in New England. Hence the name this is Justin from obscure a true crime podcast. Did you know that the rhino is almost extinct? Worldwildlife DOT org reports that at the beginning of the twentieth century. Five hundred thousand. Rhinos roamed Africa and Asia by Nineteen Seventy Rhino numbers. Dropped seventy thousand and today as few as twenty nine thousand. Rhinos remain in the wild in nineteen. Eighty Troy Leon Gregg and three other convicted murderers escaped death row in Georgia. The escape wasn't discovered until Greg called a newspaper to Brag about it. He was killed that same night in a bar fight. After he got aggressive with a waitress he actually would have lived slightly longer if he had stayed on death row. The longest medical word in English is new motto. Ultra MICROSCOPIC SILICA VOLCANIC CUNEO. Sus the longest non-medical word in the dictionary is anti-disease establishmentarian them but one letter longer than that is the recently coined word Fluxa Nossa Hill of pillow vacation. The act of judging something to be worthless British Comedians love to joke on the US for being a young country but the US is the oldest country in the western hemisphere and older than a lot of European countries like Italy and Germany in Africa only Ethiopia and Morocco are older. South Sudan is the youngest country in the world at Amir. Nine years old. Who halfway down half to go now will be a good time to take a breather and remind you that our patriots special offer is still going to ends on February the twenty ninth. It's a three pronged process. If you sign up or upgrade your membership you will get an exclusive limited run cards against humanity. Style expansion pack made of facts. That were too blue to include on the show. Don't have cards against humanity. No problem you could make your own game with the car. It's like trying to guess which one of the strange things on the black card finishes the sentence on the white card. I've also lowered the price of two of the tears and increased benefits that all tiers get from now on even the two dollar a month supporters will receive the exclusive podcast spot. The lie eighty percent brilliant facts. Twenty percent tricky. Bs and yes two dollars. A month is a big help and greatly appreciated so head on over to Patriots Dot com slash your brain on facts and help support the show alongside Amber Baron Christina Syndrome Council geeks. Dan Darren Eric Jamie Jean McKenzie. Michael Kay Michael L. Nathan Adam Ryan Sean Seth Shanty Tricia Troy or SPO- will biscuit and William. You are much more likely to be killed by a vending machine. A cow or a coconut. Then you are by a shark. Ten Times as many people are bitten by other people in New York about sixteen hundred annually than there are people bitten by sharks a Ti eighty-three graphing. Calculator has six times as much processing power as the computers that put a hollow eleven on the moon. I'm kate from the explorers. Podcast where we time travel back through history to find out what life was like for women of the past the Nineteenth Century Hoop skirts. Women wore might look restrictive. But they were used. In some ingenious ways during the American civil war women smuggled food medicine and even gun parts over enemy lines. By tying them to the rid of their cage crinolines one Kentucky girl managed to smuggle some two hundred Colt revolvers under her skirts. Over the course of just two weeks on the fifth floor of the. Us Supreme Court building is a basketball court referred to as the highest court in the land. Originally a storeroom. It was converted to Jim Sometime in the forties. Only certain court employees are allowed to use it. And there's a sign warning. People not to play basketball. Court is in session and not to assume that the court isn't in session because it's directly below that asking ball court Marlboro. Cigarettes were first marketed. To women with the slogan. Mild as May but they didn't sell they were rebranded as hallmarks of rugged masculinity with the introduction of the Marlborough Man in the nineteen fifties. The first Marlboro man didn't actually smoke but at least four actors who portrayed it since have died from smoking related diseases he's Ryan and she's amy together we add Alexa Tech. Podcast etymology the history and origin of words. Congratulations to your brain on facts reaching the milestone of one hundred episodes my favorite factor at the moment is that a log book is called that because in the age of sail ships would figure out how fast they were going by throwing actual log tied to a long rope overboard and recording information from Matt. My favorite fact of the moment is adrenaline. And epinephrine are the exact same formal as well as being synonyms. These words have the exact same etymological one is Latin. I'm one is Greek both words meaning near the kidneys. If you've got a kick out of those check us out on your favorite podcasting out for loads more or visit lex detector dot Com Iron Eyes Cody. Native Americans seen shutting single in the famous anti-littering. Psa from the seventies was actually a Sicilian man. Born Oscar de Corti. He was cast to play native American characters over one hundred times and stuck to the fake story of his life. Even after a reporter talked to his biological family in his defense he did push directors to portray native American characters in a better light if the earth were stop spinning instantly. You wouldn't have time to worry about gravity or the lack of centrifugal force because the atmosphere would still be moving and the eleven hundred mile per hour or seventeen hundred seventy kilometer per hour winds would scour the earth right down to the bedrock. I'm Reid Messerschmitt. I make the irrationally. Exuberant podcast a podcast. But also art and I have some truly upsetting information about the King Elvis Presley toward the end of Elvis's life. He was reportedly consuming one hundred thousand calories a day not to mention handfuls of pills. His favorite meal was called the fool's gold loaf which was a hollowed out loaf of sour dough bread filled with an entire jar of blueberry jam and entire jar peanut butter and one pound of Bacon. It alone contained forty two thousand calories. He was self conscious about his weight. Gain though not enough to stop wearing white jumpsuits not very slimming and in the seventies he was put into a medically induced coma in an attempt to lose weight. Some physicians believed that the heart attack. That killed him on. The toilet was caused by a condition known as brace yourself a mega colon meeting his intestines were clogged with a quote. Clay like substance and and large to twice their normal width causing massive painful constipation and pushing against his heart. One month before Berlin. Brandenburg airport was set to open in two thousand eleven. The date got pushed back and again about a dozen times the fire suppression system was a hazard in and of itself four thousand doors were mislabeled and there was a fear of the roof would collapse. It's still not open. And now they need more money to replace things like burned out arrival departure screens according to what accounts have survived when Jewish Ballerina Francesca man was taken to Auschwitz concentration camp. She distracted an SS guard by doing a strip. Tease brained him with her high heel stole his gun and killed him. You might new prince route. Sinead O'Connor's nothing compares to you. But he also wrote shock. Khan's I feel for you manic Monday by the Bangles jungle love by the time she lease the Glamorous Life Alicia keys how come you don't call me and a whole lot more. Hello this is rob Trevino from interrupted tales. Podcast you can find out. More information about my podcast. Oh the humanity dot com. But I want to tell you a quick fact I did. You know that Jupiter's Moon Ganymede is the largest moon in the solar system. It's even larger than the planet mercury. It isn't however larger than Uranus. Congratulations moxie on one hundred episodes. In a year an average person's e-mail adds three hundred pounds or one hundred thirty six kilograms of Co two to their carbon footprint equivalent to one hundred ninety nine miles or three hundred twenty kilometers driven a car. The world's email usage generates as much co two as having an extra seven million cars on the road. There is no such thing as the color Brown because there is no brown light. What we see as Brown is reflected red and green light. If you don't want an expensive casket or a fossil fuel burning cremation. Check to see if your state is one of the eighteen that allows automation or alkaline. Hydrolysis where in your earthly remains are dissolved. Ally solution. Hi this Jerry. Linenger with the president of the United States. Podcast here with the presidential fat. Did you know that the US President Martin Van Buren is the only US president to date? Whose first language was not English. Van Buren born in kindergarten. You're to adjudge. American family was ray speaking Dutch and learned English in school. Archaeologists Tina Cheat Law in Mexico have found a dozen fifteenth century masks made from the fronts of human skulls with big fake is the skulls probably came from the most elite warriors. Did your toddler just jump into the sticker on their apple? Have no fear. Both the paper and the adhesive for stickers on fruit are edible. Thanks to Shell Company and some Clever Accounting Warner brothers has never paid royalties to the cast of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Despite the film grossing over one billion dollars this practice is almost standard in the industry. David prowse the actor inside the Darth vader costume still hasn't gotten any royalties he folks. This is algae from the short stories of Augie. Peterson the PODCAST. That is a podcast where I AH GIANT NERD. Share my original short horror stories with you. Every other Tuesday and snarky reviews a horror movie series every other Thursday. One of my favorite facts. Is that in most vertebrates including cows and deer in cats. Even there's this really cool thing on the back of their eyeball called the two. Pm Lucid Him. You would have to dissect the I to see it but if you ever do that you'll see this galaxy colored thing and that is why when you shine a light into for example your cat's eye or catch a deer in the headlights. You can see there is reflected back at you. So it's technically reflecting that part of their I and it helps them see in low light situations. There are wild hippos in Columbia which originally belonged to cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar and wild camels in Texas. That were part of failed plan for the. Us Army Camel Corps President. Teddy Roosevelt had wanted to import hippos to be raised in the Bayou for meet. The last Unicorn was animated at top Craft Studios in Japan. When it closed a few years later it was rebuilt and reopened as studio cheaply makers of spirited away in. House moving castle. A message in a bottle was thrown. Off THE TITANIC. As it was sinking it was found a year later washed up on the shore in Ireland. A few miles from the home of the man who threw it everybody. This is Shaun. Ns also known as the villain drizzle Drizzle also known by Moxie as the voice moist and I host the show called stories of your and yours now on my show I tell stories and I talk about the authors. Wrote them today? I want to give you a few facts about offers. Lots of these authors boast colorful career paths making stops in several occupations before finally making a living as a writer. But BUT BRAM Stoker author of Dracula never actually wrote full-time. For Twenty Seven Years Stoker managed a theatre for Victorian stage actor Henry also serving as the actors business manager and despite traveling the world as part of that post stoker never made it to Transylvania or to Eastern Europe off that matter. Then we have detective fiction author. The she'll Hammett author of the Maltese Falcon. He started out as a private detective. His first case was to track down the stolen ferris wheel. Oh Henry was a banker among many other things and during his stop as a banker the May have done a little bit embezzling which ended up costing him about three years in jail later on happy hundreds show. Moxie BEG for spending part of Your Day with me. Hey that's my line. The skeleton of famed body snatcher resurrection EST and murderer. William Burke is on display at the Anatomical Museum the University of Edinburgh and a calling card case made of Burke. Skin is on display at Edinburgh Police Museum. His name was also immortalized as the act of suffocating. Someone by compressing their chest which did less damage to the body's banana flavored. Things don't taste like real bananas because the bananas we eat today. Are Kathy. Bananas but banana flavoring is based on the Gross Michelle Banana which was almost wiped off the face of the earth by pathogen called Panama. Disease when you cross Corgis with other breeds of dogs the puppies will always have cute little stubby Corgi legs because Corgis have a contra plastic dwarfism. That wouldn't surprise you if you spoke Welsh because Corgi literally means Dwarf Dog. Hello this is Calvin from podcast about something and I'm excited to share a fast fact for your brain on facts. One hundredth episode. Did you know that the holiday festivus from the nineteen ninety seven episode of Seinfeld titled? The strike is actually based on a holiday. Tradition celebrated by script writer Dan. O'keefe's Family Festivals officially falls on December twenty third. It was started by Dan's father in nineteen sixty six to celebrate his first date with his wife. There's no aluminum pole in real festivus. But instead o'clock in bag which is nailed to a wall. Thanks again to your brain on facts for letting me share my USA Seinfeld knowledge and please be sure to check out podcast about something where each week we dive deep into whatever it is we find interesting the Swedish word for turtle translates as Shell toed and their word bat translates as floppy mouse. The Portuguese word for Cath. Means Potato of the leg. The German for helicopter translates to lifting screwdriver. The Icelandic for computer is number. Which the Japanese for HEDGEHOG IS NEEDLE MOUSE? The Irish word for jellyfish translates to seal snot and the Croatian word for speed bump is lying policemen. More people visit France than any other country with Paris being particularly strong draw for people from Japan and other parts of Asia. Some Japanese people are so enamored with the idea of Paris that they become depressed after visiting and finding out. It's a modern city with modern problems. Like traffic and garbage. This depressing disillusionment is called Paris Syndrome. You know how I love to say the Welsh town of clever perk. We go get it when Roba Saleo go go go but it is not the longest place name in any English speaking country as I have previously said that honor goes to a New Zealand town. I cannot hope to pronounce without a week to practice. So here's a clip. From a local weather forecast right finance sunny weather and Tito Mataafa Kettani Hongkou automatically three Puka picky Mung hold on. Aku finicky Tana. Tahu that name again. And they talk attorney hanger who Automate Three. Puka picky among hold on a group LLC Hyphen Wacky Tana Tahu and yes that is one word as overcrowded as the world seems if all seven and a half billion people were to stand shoulder to shoulder we would only fill an area the same size as the city of Los Angeles in fact the current world's population is only seven percent of the homeless. Epsn's who've ever lived. Hey moxie this is Tai Bannerman with the ANYTOWN USA podcast. And here's my fast fact. The first American woman to be honored with a statue was handed. Dustin whose claim to fame was killing. And scalping one adult men two women and six children. And what a coincidence we just happened to cover Hannah. Dustin and the Hatchets Archie Comics episode of the town. Usa podcast the most popular boy's name in the world is Muhammad. But it usually doesn't show up baby name lists or popularity tracking because of all the different possible spellings. The popularity is thanks to a Muslim tradition of naming each firstborn son after the prophet according to a study developed for National Geographic. In twenty eleven. The world's most typical person is right. Handed makes less than twelve thousand dollars. A year has a mobile phone but not a bank account. Hey Moxie this is Daniel from talk. Talk podcast A podcast about linguistics. The science of language. Congratulations on your episode of Your Brain on facts. I just wanted to drop a little linguistic fact for you. One of my favorites. The word helicopter looks as though it would break down as heli and copter right. Seems obvious the surprising fact is it actually breaks down to helical spiral and turn wing. That Betar is the same. Tur- AS IN PTERODACTYL and Toronto. Don so a helicopter is a spiral wing. And that just illustrates how sometimes the of award will become so paik that we will break off. Bits of words and start using them in new ways regardless of where you are in the world. If you see a panda in the zoo it does not belong to that. Sue All giant pandas on loan from China and the government can take them back at anytime. Facebook has more users than the population of the United States China and Brazil combined in about fifty years. The number of accounts belonging to people who have died will outnumber accounts belonging to those who are still living. There are ten quadrille Ian individual ants crawling around on the earth to put it another way for every human being that exists. There is that person's weight aunts and yes even accounting for the obesity epidemic. Hi I'm Anne in Boston Massachusetts. And I'm Johanna in Vienna Austria. We had a host of the fresh. Hell podcast. We have a murder mystery and macabre throughout history. You may have heard of Victorian death photography sometimes when a family member would die. If they didn't have a photo of their loved one in life they would have taken when they had passed away. But there's a lot of misinformation about this fascinating photographs for example. They are no photos of people standing upright with the use of a stand. No that's a myth. Even a photo of Alice in Wonderland writer Lewis Carroll is out there labeled as a death photo when he was in fact very much alive for more on this topic and so much more. You'll find fresh on your favorite podcast platform. Hope to see assume by choose every second of every day to people die and four people are born. Gave her take Andre. The giant was in Japan wrestling under the name monster roussel mov his actual last name when he learned that his size was caused by To Terry condition called Akron. He was offered surgery to stop his abnormal growth but turned it down despite the near constant pain that it caused him because it gave him such an advantage in the ring. There are more possible iterations of chess games than there are atoms in the observable universe this value known as the. Shannon number is estimated to be between ten to the one hundred eleventh power and ten to one hundred twenty third power which is one with one hundred twenty three zeroes after. Hey Moxie Ryan here. From conspiracy theory the beginnings of flying saucer mania has a precise date. Well at least it's widely accepted to be the start that date is June twenty-fourth nineteen forty seven was on that day. That amateur pilot Kenneth Arnold spotted a series of objects he could not readily identify in the sky over Mount Rainier in Washington. By the next day he was being interviewed by local reporters for the East Oregonian newspaper. He described these flying objects as unidentified and in describing their movements said that they flew like a saucer if you skipped it across the water by June twenty six. Two new story was being printed in papers across the country with headlights. Such as this. From the Chicago Sun supersonic flying saucer cited by Idaho. Pilot the rest as they say is history. Congratulations on one hundred. Eight episodes and thanks for letting conspiracy theory helped celebrate. Here's two hundred. More cheers the chance of an atom in your glass of water. Having once been an atom in a dinosaur is almost one hundred percent Cambridge University is older than the Aztec Empire. Cleopatra live closer to the first iphone than the building of the Great Pyramids and France used the Guillotine for the last time the year star wars came out before settling on the seven towards today. Disney considered chesty. Tubby burpee deffee. Hickey wheezy and awful. Stephen Hawking once threw a party for time travellers on June twenty eighth two thousand nine but he announced the party the next day. No one showed up next time. You're about to do something crazy. Pause a minute if no one comes back from the future to stop you. Could it really be that bad of an idea and the final fact you are awesome? And I'm so glad that you've enjoyed the show. Here's to another hundred episodes of your brain on facts. Thanks for spending part of Your Day with me he. This is Moxie from slightly less far in the past. I completely forgot to thank all of the amazing shows who contributed to today's episode. You can find links to them in the show notes as well as on the website at your brain on facts dot com slash one hundred.

United States president Moxie Ryan writer President Jerry Paris Japan Paul Kate Shaw Texas US Navy British navy China Helen John Quincy Adams Betty Boop Asia Mario Ireland
The Last Great Pandemic with John M. Barry

Why Is This Happening? with Chris Hayes

48:36 min | 4 months ago

The Last Great Pandemic with John M. Barry

"What happens in any any? Infectious disease is dependent. On how the course of that pathogen. In an individual's body what happens in pandemic is a course of that pathogen through the entire society? Hello and welcome to wise is happening with me your host Chris Hayes. Hopefully my voice sounds better now than it did last week. Were slowly adjusting to the new reality. I'm podcasting in a closet like you do. Hopefully you get a nice kind of close intimate. Sound Not Roomy Echo my faithful audio engineer and assistant and co-pilot all things. Kate Shaw has been helping me We've got a good microphone setup here so hopefully all is good and you know. We took your feedback last week about whether you were chomping at the bit for more corona virus content or whether you wanted to escape from corona virus content and we got a mixed bag some people saying like I want to get away from it. Some people saying yes. I want more but not just with Duffy doing the news so today we have something that I think. Sort of perfectly fits in the middle of those two places. We have probably heard a lot in the last few weeks last month about the great flu pandemic of Nineteen Eighteen. In fact I would be willing to bet unless you're an epidemiologist or a historian of this particular period. The are very high that you've heard more in the last few weeks about the great flu pandemic of Nineteen Eighteen. Then you had ever heard in your entire life before and so i. I had known about the great flu. Pandemic in one thousand nine hundred before this moment always sort of been interested in in fact it was adjacent to a book project that I had thought of doing it. A point and and may pursue in the future but when this started last February when it started gathering steam I wanted to read a book about it and so I turned to. Twitter is often do and I said what's What's the best chronicle of the great flu? Pandemic of nineteen eighteen and the the number one vote in that was a book called the great influenza which is published in two thousand and four by John Berry and I read it and they were right. It's fantastic. It's an incredible piece of work. It's fascinating look at all different sort of contours of it. It is striking striking. How chillingly prescient. It is today and in Fact John. Berry in March seventeenth wrote a piece from New York Times and the lead page called the single. Most important lesson from the nineteen eighteen influenza. So if you want to understand basically the last great pandemic what are the lessons we can learn from one hundred and two years ago as we fight this? I thought there was no one better to talk to than John. Barren so John How did you? How did you first get interested in the great flu? Pandemic in one thousand nine hundred wildly enough. I plan to write a buck about the home. Front World War One culminating in one thousand nine hundred nineteen Which I think is one of the most interesting years in American history But the way I live on any book advancing that would have taken me seven years or so. I didn't get big enough advance. I was interested influenza. At all almost became a scientist a researcher And thought I could subsidize the larger but by researching that book which I thought I could complete in an easy two years no worse than two and a half but it took me seven years so you went into it thinking. I'M GONNA I'M GONNA break this into small pieces in the pandemic that'll be a smaller thing. Then the big homefront project but ended up ballooning to the exact same size exactly. Yeah it's fascinating because one of the things that I'm discovering right now and this and this is this shows up in the book as well as that. A pandemic is a moment when every single field of human knowledge comes together where every single form of human behavior and institutional order come together so everything from biology economics statistics to mathematical models to government structure. All of this gets you know crush together in how you end up dealing with the pandemic and that's that's clear in your book. Well I mean you're exactly right It puts pressure on every element of human society. They all have to respond one way or another. The book starts with a fascinating history and disquisition on American medical history. That I knew nothing about so. Maybe we can start there. Which is that basically in the late. Nineteenth Century thirty forty years before the flu. What was the state of of American medicine? Well it's the worst in the Western World. If you could pay your fees could get into medical school Harvard you only needed to pass five out of nine courses to get in a doctor. A medical degree In most medical schools. You never saw patient. Every course was a lecture. Very few at micro schools had microscopes. This this is. We're talking about deep into the nineteenth century after pasture while Germany Robert Cub because you know already establishing great things So it was extraordinarily backward. Basically I mean the sense I got from your book and this this economic models fascinating at these faculties were essentially. The medical faculties were were were paying themselves for fees and had no no incentive for standards. They just wanted as many customers. Come through toxically right if you you know. Student fees were faculty salaries so they were not going to reject you. If you make your way to the bank you were in Reform initially started after a recent Harvard. Graduate fail you know? I guess he failed the chorus line from ecology he prescribes seven or eight patients in a row a fatal dose of morphine and then Harvard at least started to get a little better but the real reform came with the founding of Johns Hopkins Medical School and a Brilliant Pathologist Impresario type William Welch. Shoes might very well be the most important figure in the history of American science not just American medicine. He was president of every scientific society practically in the United States that he was at any and gentle involvement in the including the National Academy of Sciences Hopkins was modeled after the German universities very rigorous very difficult to get accepted. All Science base lab based Really examined patients and you know closely in that Model L. attracted. I mean most of the people who became wanted become doctors who are highly motivated and many of them ended up going to Europe to get real training because the training and the United States was so poor but they all wanted to go to Hopkins and Harvard had to compete and University of Pennsylvania competed in Hopkins sort of seeded people. All over the country into you know Running medical schools then in one thousand nine hundred ten there was a record by Guy Name Abraham Flexner On the State of American Medical Education. And and you know it was absolutely scandalous And people were so appalled everywhere in the country. I mean roughly half the medical schools. The United States closed emerged within the next few years and largely because that report hopkins vital and since Santa Marta. Education has been a very consistent from top to bottom there are some schools are better than others. But there's no bad school. I had no idea so you basically had this like long period in which it's essentially it's kind of a racket. It's basically a scientific medicine men. It's a cartel of folks that train other people then go out and pedal whatever crazy sometimes just totally medieval a scientific theories of the humor's or bloodletting whatever it is right well you know the American psyche or sign of it's the psyche or not but the antilock intellectualism anti elitism And of course as part of that was also. That medicine couldn't do a lot for you in in the early part of the nineteenth century They just weren't capable of doing much more than sending a broken limb and maybe some surgeries so there wasn't much faith in the profession but by late nineteenth century European doctors were pretty capable and as I said a lot of to quote William Welsh. The results were much better than the system is. A system was corrupt but so many people wanted to be doctors. As I said earlier they went to Europe for Real Training Right. Mccain back in practice so well basically I had no idea until I had none of knew none of this until I read your book. that that. Welsh and Hopkins are sort of the fulcrum point for American Medical Education to transform it from a An almost kind of medieval cartel of healers to of of a scientific field in which people undertake science they undertake scientific education. They even do. They start doing controlled experiments with with with patients. Right there they start trying treatments they doing all the stuff we associate with modern medical schools. That happens basically right as we head into World War One exactly and the transformation occurred with almost unbelievable speed and matter really a decade. A half things changed almost upside down so one of the things that obviously the World War One and the and the flu pandemic or not accidentally correlated one of the things that you talk about the book at is that war is a petri dish for disease. Always that's been the case throughout human history and was certainly the case in a run up to super one. Wh WHY is that? Why why and how? And how much more does disease tend to kill than the actual warfighting historically people knew so little about Public Health An infection after a wound without antibiotics is is pretty dangerous Between those two things pretty much every war it kill the disease killed more people than combat In fact going into even the spanish-american Walk Cholera killed more American soldiers than combat it That was largely because of the stupidity of camp commanders who ignored via their medical people's advice. Who could have saved a lot of lives with very simple public? Health Sanitation Measures But the Surgeon General Army very interesting guy named William Gorgas who is one of the heroes in in building the Panama Canal by eliminating yellow. Fevers Threat No he was determined that this would be the first war where disease did not kill more than a combat dried out to be wrong but tried hard. Obviously that didn't happen. The pandemic killed more people than in World War. One does it does. It is the the proximity of all these soldiers next. Each other trenches is that the kind of super spreading ignition for the pandemic will. Actually I don't think so I think it would have happened anyway. And the Nineteen. Eighteen pandemic came in waves. The first wave was quite mild So mild that you could read Medical Journal articles saying this looks like influence. It smells like influenza. But you know what not enough people are dying so tonight in Glens and then a few weeks later the first outbreak of the lethal second way of the endemic actually was in Switzerland and it was so lethal there that an American intelligence report from Geneva said you know they're they say this is influenced by. That's actually the black death of the Middle Ages. Ours was in the black death in the Middle Ages. Certainly soldiers suffered more because they're close quarters but I don't think that was a factor in the evolution of the virus Burr example in New York City in early February nineteen eighteen. It wasn't noticed at the time. Only in retrospect some of the work that came in the early two thousands Very pronounced spring wave occurred In New York City that had absolutely nothing to do with soldiers in actually that predated any outbreak in any of the military camps So it it again. Soldiers were dying because Aaron close quarters anybody. Living close quarters was more vulnerable In addition. I'm sure you'd get to this. They were the right age to die in the nineteen eighteen pandemic Targeted young people the peak age for death was twenty eight wild. Probably two thirds of the dead were a eighteen to forty five. Or maybe fifty. Maybe more than two thirds of you stretch into fifty The elderly people over sixty five well over ninety percent of the excess mortality was people. Were under sixty five years old younger than that. So what that means is there had been a virus that circulated half a century earlier very very similar to the lethal nineteen eighteen virus. Oh similar that it provided me a lot of natural protection to the elderly but but so mild that it was basically entirely on notice. Basically a generational natural vaccine from a similar strain that antibodies. It's such a fascinating part of the book. In many ways there are so many similarities. But in this way it's in burst because there's this generational cohort that appears to have the antibodies that protects them. So that the that that fatalities are falling squarely on younger people. While the old people -actly exactly and that of course is the precise opposite normally even plaza normally. Are you now your listeners? Now normally influenza kills the elderly in the very young Dow in nineteen eighteen. It did kill the very young Children Ages. One to four died at a rate that would be equal to all cause mortality today for a period of fourteen years. So just imagine that the other thing is incredibly compressed time that lethal second wave worldwide covered. Maybe fifteen weeks in in a given city would pass through a city in anywhere from six to ten weeks so you have the overwhelming majority of the deaths in this really compressed time period. If you're a parent you can imagine saying equal to today's all cause mortality for fourteen years. Compressed into Six to ten weeks. You're saying your kids die And You yourself. If you're you're in your twenties and you're the target demographic for that disease it's pretty scary there. The wave in the spring and the fall right right in more deadly one in the fall. Let's talk about much more yet. So there's the similarities are the things that were remarkable to read your book in this context is there are a ton of similarly so one of them is You've got some sort of. It appears right. Some sort of species jump in this novel influenza. That people don't have antibodies or people younger. There certain age have no antibodies. And so the kind of implacable logic of viral transmission among a naive population even though the transportation mechanisms at the time or totally different. It's a completely different world but just the simple biological math of spread is basically the same one hundred years ago exactly and for that matter in the sixteen hundreds into pandemic made it from Europe to North America Native Americans and on both continents not as much smallpox But probably close to as much as maizels so you don't need airplanes to spread a pandemic. Obviously they spread them more quickly but nineteen eighteen. Got All the way around the world to the most isolated places Jong Wu villages in Africa Labrador Alaska an annual village is In some of those places I mean really I more. They had never seen any influenza virus At least if you're a New York City you had been exposed to some So if you've never seen any influenza virus total lead virgin population is an epidemiologist. Would say you're in trouble. I mean some of these villages one hundred percent mortality on not as Sara Lee because the virus killed everybody but because everybody gets sick at the same time nobody could even get someone else hydrated right the the talk a little bit about just what you do a very good job of explaining so but just like what a flu viruses and and and how it works. Well it's in our neighbor. Iris and ornate viruses mutate rapidly. But not all the same time. Influence is one of the fastest mutating one of the things. That's quite unusual about it. Is that most organisms had their Genetic sequence on a continuous strand of Furner band organism. Dna for some viruses aren a but influenza its genome is carried on a separate segments of our so two different influenza viruses infect the same cell they can trade their segments. It's like taking two decks of cards and shuffling them together and come out with a new virus That's what happened in two thousand and nine a it's called reassortment It is a doesn't have to be lethal. Two thousand nine was no worse. Maybe a little better than your average influenza season. Although two thousand nine actually killed young people not opie The age for death in two thousand nine was very close to that that it was nine thousand nine hundred ninety eight one thousand one hundred swine right h one inland and But anyway we're not here to talk about tonight. Well so so you've got this. It mutates I mean right now. We're we're we seem to be lucky in the sense that the corona virus has not mutating. And you talk about current lot more stable than influenza right and you talk about corona viruses in the In the book because it's the sort of family of viruses that make the common cold and also produced SARS which was You know had had been the world when you're writing the book and there are some similarities. I mean basically the viruses latching onto a part of cell structure taking over the cell and turning into a factory for the viruses are essentially right EXAC. Exactly that's precisely what happens. And then one of the things that happens in both influence on the corona virus is that. There's a huge immune response and sometimes that immune response itself sends the body into distress. That that's called the acute respiratory distress under arts and that's one of the factors. Why young people were dying in nineteen eighteen Their immune systems are stronger than older people. And in many cases Their immune systems would you know has very lethal weapons. It was throwing a every weapon at had at the virus. The battlefield was along was destroying the long fight. The virus And people were die and same thing. Today is happening older people but their immune systems are the young people are strong enough to fight off the virus before it becomes that severe. I WanNa talk about How the world came to understand what was happening in nineteen eighteen and how it fought back. Once the virus started make its way through the world. We're GONNA talk about that right after we take this break. Hi everyone it's joy reid host of. Am Joy on MSNBC. Did you know you can listen to? Am Joy and all your favorite MSNBC shows as podcast. You can catch up on the beat with all. Remember the Rachel Maddow. Show the eleventh hour with Brian Williams and more anytime on the go. Search for your favorite. Msnbc shows wherever you're listening to this podcast and subscribe for free. Thanks for listening. Hey why is this happening listeners? It's mainly MSNBC correspondent and host of the new podcast into America would happens if you're one of the more than two million. Americans sitting behind bars as corona virus spreads. This week I talked to a Colorado woman who is struggling to remain in contact with her incarcerated husband stressful in the way that I don't know what's going on I don't know is he. Okay is e CIG. So it's like we're trying to live our lives like we normally would but how cleaning and Dateline. Nbc producer. Dan Slepian takes US inside. New York. Sing-sing correctional facility to meet. Jj Quiz an inmate who describes how prison dynamics are shifting as fears of an outbreak group. Prison is a place where like when this tension you can feel the tension. You can fail the air when you walk around and it's thanks subscribed to a free wherever you get your podcast. So John Berry who wrote this book about The great influenza of nineteen eighteen. So you you have this outbreak. It's it's it's not dissimilar in structure to other outbreaks that had come before and other break since and the outbreak. We have now. Which is that a virus mutates in a part of the world such that most humans in this case the krona virus no humans as far as we know have built an antibodies. You introduce a new virus into a NAIVE INTO VIRGIN POPULATION. You get incredible exponential transmission. That's what we're watching happen now. Day by day with the corona virus. It's what happened in nine hundred eighteen. At what point at that point both medicine and public health are fairly nascent? American sciences? Talk about the policy response. How how policymakers in the US started to understand what was happening in one thousand nine hundred eighteen award game in And became a major factor in what happened. The public health people were. Were pretty good. The it made enormous strides and we actually had We understood vaccine manufacturer. scientifically I mean some of the scientists I write about and there the main characters the buck or extraordinary guy won the Nobel prize in nineteen sixty six for work. He did in nineteen eleven. He was fifty five years ahead of the Kerr. They won't give you the prize unless you unless they know what your Authorizing is correct to feed fifty five years ahead of the curve. May in one of the characters in fact. I dedicated the book to Him. He proved. Polio is a viral disease in nineteen eighty eight and had a vaccine hundred percent effective again. Monkeys protecting against polio. Two years later so they were good scientists the but I didn't know what was causing influence. They didn't actually know. Virus was Even though is I just said they'd Polio viral disease. They didn't know was entirely different. Kind of organism. Just a really really small bacteria They tried to grow it. You can't grow a virus. Petri dish Kenia living sale got allies along replicate as you just. Said said they were. They couldn't regrow the pathogen. They thought the pathogen was a bacteria which actually still is known as a Mafia influence. Influence is still part of its name and they were trying to make back scenes against that they were trying to make that change successfully against the pneumococcus which was caused a lot of people. Got Back to your home. Ammonia You got a new Manja vaccine today. It's a straight line descended from what they developed the nine hundred nineteen But the larger context Assad side. I mean what happens in any infectious disease is depending on. How the chorus of that pathogen? In an individual's body what happens in a pandemic is of course that pathogen to the entire subsided and because we were at war woodrow Wilson had created an infrastructure dedicated to one thing winning bat or area In among and he was with it there would be no distractions. One of the things that he did was create what was called the Committee for public information which The architect of that committee wrote Truth and falsehood arbitrary terms. There is nothing in that experience tells us that one is better than the other had this propaganda arm it in army camps. A popular song was banned. I wonder who's kissing her now. Nothing was tolerated. That would hurt morale in the views of those in power so in entwined came along. There was no Tony. Five the National Public Health later said This is ordinary influenza by another name. Notice fantas influence. Aiden didn't start there but it had that names and another National Public Health leader said Yeah not fair problem. Proper precautions are taken and these lines were echoed almost everywhere in the United States. This was denied ordinary influenza by another The symptoms could be horrific Even to the extent the you could believe not just from nose and mouth but from your eyes and ears. That's pretty horrific symptom particularly for layperson. People were turning dark blue. You know I I quote one doctor writing a colleague a dark blue from lack of oxygen. That this doctor couldn't differentiate between African American soldiers and white soldiers because their power was so similar which of course spread rumors of the black death. In that's why earlier I mentioned Intel. Us intelligence report said. It was the black death in Switzerland not actually influenza so people are being told by not only National Public Health leaders but by their local public health leaders. That not this is. This is no big deal and they knew it was a big deal because bay new ordinary influenza. Didn't kill you. Twenty four hours as could happen. Case and influence than ordinarily cause symptoms that caused initial misdiagnosis cholera typhoid. Is Dan Gay so they knew they were being lied to. So I mean there were two impacts of these lies. The first is people didn't take it seriously initially and therefore we're dying the second is because allies continued People lost all trust in what they were being told. They were totally in the dark. In the unknown generates fear I think ultimately society is based on trust without in any hurry figure People had to rely on themselves in the worst case society began to pray to the accent. I'll tell you how bad the the media was in the sense of minimizing There was actually a law. Sedition Act that could threaten somebody with Prosecution for twenty years in jail If they told the truth so that reason not to tell the truth but in Philadelphia when they finally close filled out his hardest hit cities in the country if not the world when they finally closed you know schools bars so forth and so on and at the same time mass graves being dug one of the newspapers said these closings are not a public health. Measure you have no cause for alarm on Christ I mean. How stupid did they think people were so in Philadelphia? The place began to disintegrate. It was everybody for himself or herself for for their families when they're calling when volunteer agencies are calling for volunteers nobody showing up People are literally starving to death because they can't find anyone to bring them food and that happen not only in Philly but even in rural communities where you would expect family and community everything The Red Cross reports instances of the same thing so that that will give you some measure of the fear that was out there and I think that was a direct result of people. Being lied to You know the the unknown in your imagination is always going to be more powerful than the reality. What's so striking about? This part of the book is just the I mean the resonances now. Obviously it's very different in that. Governments have not continued. The denial is all the way through as they did during this which is just a staggering to think of but it's fascinating that impulses air. I mean we know the Chinese government particularly the local government who bay province in. Wuhan basically tamped down. They lied about it. They said this isn't anything to worry about. Everything's connected to the to the wet market that it's pneumonia. We know that the same similar things happened in Iran we know here in the US we had a month of US president and people around him saying talking about what you just said. It's not that different from the flu. The flu kills all these people every year. This is not that big a deal. The market's GONNA rebound like this in this impulse buy policy makers to say. Don't worry it's not that bad. It's it's so deadly and yet so persistent across time and place people don't like to give bad news even yeah I. The reality is what trump did for. Several months makes no sense even politically. Because he's gotTa know it's GonNa come back and bite him and his own self. Interest would have been more forthright but at least in the United States on lightsaber Brazil. Right now you had tony. Five was always trying to be a pretty transparent. You add the CDC saying things that were contradicting the White House. So you did have a disconnect between the White House operation itself and the rest of the administration and as our number made many public statements but by every indication. He's he's pretty frustrated. That's AJ chess secretary. I just have to yes so so so when I mean. Is there a moment? We're talking about the degree to which this sets in. I mean you've got you've got mass graves you've got people starving to death. You've got people dying in horrific numbers right. You've got this happening around the world and yet it's during the war and it's not just the US government that suppressing it governments around the world are like it's this is quiet death that's creeping across the planet and I'm like today where the number one news story in every country right now is the virus creeping across the world the global pandemic. It's almost the opposite that it was the opposite. That and here's an example. I didn't ride much about Phoenix in the book but actually a lot of research. They're thinking I might do philly and Phoenix. But it got too redundant but the first place. The lethal second-wave erupted in the United States since Boston when it was in Boston you read. The Phoenix va newspapers. There's they're writing about it when it's in New Orleans the writing about it but less when it's actually in Phoenix there is Harley award in the Phoenix newspapers. Wow just something. They were going to ignore because they thought it would hurt the war effort and also possibly goes. They might have been prosecuted. It was early in the pandemic one. Wisconsin newspaper it. Right the truth and They were threatened with prosecution. Sedition Act you know which in fact the quote unquote I do. Recall made it illegal to quote utter right print or publish any disloyal scarlets or profane language about the government of the United States unquote. So you could swear at. The government does an ammo of bees. You broke the law. And they enforce that law they sent a United States congressman to for fifteen years under that law. So as I say. They threatened prosecution this newspaper. Which tried to cupboard honestly Although they dropped that as as the pandemic continued but that was the attitude. I don't think ever in American history. You certainly know. Probably as much as I do. American history Even in the red scare in the fifties during World War Two The civil war certainly not in the civil war There was never even this kind of an attempt to control the way people thought. Yeah I think that's right. It's it's crazy. Being reminded of how totaling the propaganda operation is at the time and particularly when the reality hits up against it but there is also the case that as you just mentioned impasse close the bars and restaurants in Philly which is to say there are public health experts. At the time who recognize right you have to? You have to stop the transmission and the method they're using are identical essentially to what we're doing now. That's exactly right and that's one of the other key lessons. I is telling the truth because without that the segments not gonNA work. The second one is what we are. Now going social distancing. And you have to do it early. I you know after a raw when bird-flu erupted h five n one The US government governments around the world. Good deeply involved in pandemic preparedness and a lot of that in the United States anyway and probably elsewhere was based on analysis of what happened in one thousand nine hundred eighteen because of my knowledge of that I was I was asked to participate in these Preparedness Planning sessions at least the conceptualizing at the fine tuning with models and so forth And you know we analyze cities and particularly guy named Howard Marquel the University of Michigan We analyzed what cities did in a one thousand nine hundred eighteen and found that those cities which intervened early had a much better experience at the very least in terms of flattening the curb. If you the intervene too late the viruses already widely disseminated in your community and no intervention is GonNa have any effect if the enemy is already inside. The home doesn't do any good to lock the door. You know so you know that it's the difficult. Today is getting public support. I think they're rowdiest. Widespread public support a long long way from Unanimous public support for these measures today. But it's hard to get that support when it's not obvious. And the time to take these measures to impose restrictions is before the virus gets widely spread in your community. One set once. It's already out there. It's it's pretty much too late or much much more difficult to get ahead of it So that those were the two lessons and Nike. You can't get compliance with these social distancing measures unless people believe you and they're not going to believe you unless you start out telling the truth. I think one of the problems that were having in the states today is having spent two months minimizing it both from the White House and from from Fox. You have a significant portion of the population. That still thanks. It's not a big deal on still. Thanks don't really need to comply to these measures because it heard that for two months though the White House and Fox also have changed their tune significantly On those lines but it makes compliance at much more hard which makes it more dangerous not only for those people who don't comply but for everybody else in this society one of the one of the things I keep thinking about is the memory hole of this experience. Which when you read your book it makes more sense because it was tamped down because it was kept secret and because of the trauma the war. It's such a crazy thing you know. Everyone knows about World War One. We have an entire literature in the wake of Rwandan cultural movements of you know novels written about the sort of you know the shadow that the charnel house industrial maternity casserole society. We've got the wasteland. We've got iming way like just this incredible upsurge of cultural reckoning with the grotesquery that was the first World War the cultural memory ripple effects of the pandemic despite the fact that killed more people is far fewer. In fact many people don't learn about in history. People are sort of discovering it now and I guess I have a sense from reading your book why that is but I'm curious why you think that is why I thought about that. It's an obvious question. I never really came up with a satisfactory answer. I got a couple of things I speculate on number one until a couple of decades ago historians like to what do write about what people did. The people not what nature did to people number two? It was painful and people tried to Beria number three. The whole thing happened so fast you really talk about period weeks in any given community number four it was out there it was part of the psyche. You know it may have contributed. You know who knows how much to the roaring twenties. The idea you know party on his two cares about tomorrow or You Know Fitzgerald may have contributed to what Fitzgerald wrote when he said all God's dead all wars fought all face a man shaken when BANACCI's what took over the march into Berlin in nineteen thirty three Christopher isherwood wrote was writing Berlin stories I mean that Bruin Stories became the movie cabaret one of my favorite movies. And if you haven't seen it something to stream it's really amazing anyway. Isherwood wrote when the Nazis entered quote. You could feel it like influenza in your buttons unquote. So this is fifteen years. After the fact and he expected any of his readers to know exactly what he meant so it was in the back of. Everyone's mind but you're right. I mean there's an incredible lack of literature on it. There's a little bit daffron. Poor but John Dos Passos. One of my favorite writers. He got influence on a troopship. Which is one of the worst places you could possibly get it at as we're seeing right now. In fact I mean yeah exactly and yet he never wrote about two sentences in his entire body. Work about it you know. I can't explain why that is. What do you think about this moment? That in that context. I mean I'm sitting here. I'm I'm in a closet in a house in which my kids are home schooling in which were were around each other all day. It's our lives are completely chains. They're totally disrupted. It's it's the polar opposite of of what happened in nineteen eighteen where the government said. Go about Your Business. It's fine and people's lives disintegrated or didn't that it was gone and it was horrible trauma and death. We've up ended our lives correctly to try to stave off the worst case scenario. And I wonder what you think of the what what how we will make cultural meaning of. I guess I'm asking you to predict something that you can't but how we will make meaning of this white. I don't know how to make meaning of it. That's too deep for me. Maybe but I. This is not going to be forgotten. This is going to be written about analyzed. It's also GonNa have much more profound effect. You know nineteen eighteen. I think probably did affect people's thinking I do think it was in the back of their minds. But this is the front of People's minds for a long term visits people using zoom that they won't go back to Saint meetings whether even affects architecture. If people don't need office buildings The best thing about this virus if you say there's a good thing as at least as compared to nineteen eighteen it's much less lethal the worst thing. It lasts lots going to last a lot longer. Differences incubation period incubation period. Fear influences want four days and most people get sick after forty eight hours incubation for this period to to fourteen days people even long fourteen days. Aso As at time delays cycles through instead of passing through community and it's short is six weeks and then being gone having burned through the available fuel infected. Everybody who's vulnerable coming back later by still go on. This thing is going to drag on. It's GonNa have much longer duration and You know that is GonNa be a problem with getting people to comply seat on sustain at compliance. Your you know what we're doing how we will lose benefits We don't have pine probably get into how we get back. There are ways to get back to get the economy moving at least in pieces Safely while also pursuing public health measures that makes sense there are ways to do it and bows devastating. Antibodies rapid tests right handed the and so forth and so on. I'm sure you've you know you've had yesterday Bradley talking about that You know but we need to plan. We don't have a plan The failure of the federal government and and this is incomprehensible. It really is John Berry is the author of the Fantastic Book. The Great Influenza. It was published in two thousand and four. But if you're like me and you're sort of craving deeper understanding of the moment we're in I I can't recommend enough. It's very well written. It's it's got tons of fascinating insights about a whole different sort of spectrum of issues. The history medical education more propaganda. You could also see the article. He wrote back in March Seventeenth. The single most important lesson from the nineteen John Great. Thanks a really really had a really enjoyed this. So did I thank you once again? My great thanks John Berry. That was a fascinating conversation. I hope you found it as engaging as I did. You can tweet us the Hashtag with pod. Email with potted gmail.com. We love getting your feedback. Particularly as Tiffany is sort of work out all the kinks here of this crazy new world of of closet. Podcasting and Corona Virus podcasting. Why is this happening? Presented by MSNBC AND NBC News produced by the all in team features music. By Eddie Cooper you can see more of our work including links to things. We mentioned here by going. Nbc News Dot Com Slash. Wise has happened. Hey everyone it's Dylan byers from NBC News on my new podcast buyer's market. I'm taking behind the scenes of the rapidly changing world of technology and media. I sit down one on one with powerbrokers like facebook. Sheryl Sandberg. Espn's Jimmy Potrero. And Media. Mogul Barry Diller to talk about how they're industry intersects with politics how they use consumer data to shape their product. And what they think. The Future of American culture holds search for buyers market. Wherever you're listening right now and subscribe.

influenza United States pandemic John Berry New York City government White House MSNBC Polio Europe Nbc Switzerland American sciences Kate Shaw scientist Twitter joy reid John
Battling the Darkness with Thomas Burke Jr.

Why Is This Happening? with Chris Hayes

56:17 min | 4 months ago

Battling the Darkness with Thomas Burke Jr.

"This is a world that is suffering. This is a world. I think we're all hurting. We're all sad sometimes and I want people to be able to see resurrection. I want people to understand that there is life after failure. Welcome to Wise Avenue would be your host Chris as well this week to hear of our special coveted physical distancing podcast studio with a huge assist from time wise is happening. Guess Kate Shaw. One of the cocoas of strict scrutiny. Which is her own legal podcasts. You should listen to. We are like most of you adjusting to the new life. That's all live at a science lesson markets today to the mall collecting worms. Not sure really what got caught there but a lot of ones collected. That was good. And we're going to try to start sort of moving into doing more Gra pandemic related podcast content. I don't know about weirdly. I am sort of obsessed I can't tell people want escapism at this moment. But today we have an amazing conversation with amazing person and we recorded this before depend adequate in view. But it's sort of an oddly fitting conversation because you know one of the things that get so hard for all right now is like remember in the way things used to be and he knows he read aloud history particularly first person accounts diaries of people in moments of great violence or war or illness. There's kind of moment before woman after right like you know. Someone's a shopkeeper in Berlin and the next thing they know it's crystal everything changes or someone is no housewife in part of India and then partition happens. And there's you know the knock at the door that should happens over and over you know. The Not experience exists of a moment before a moment after when everything changes before and after for a lot of people. I think in my generation nine eleven was very much like that but it was the home before and the moment after that moment after some ways extended into the now in fact it's relevant directly to the store today Thomas for who I spoke with today His Life I think it's fair to say sort of divided into moment but hormone after he was a young man who joined the Marines and the aftermath of nine eleven who went off to Iraq who went to Afghanistan who saw some truly horrific things who struggled deeply with addiction and depression came out the other side. A priest a believer a pastor a deeply spiritual person why I encounter on twitter and found so compelling and distinct in strange in his voice and wanted to speak to him for this podcast and I find that listening to him in these times is kind of comfort. I should note that there are very very intense discussions in this conversation about violence in war about grief about addiction about suicides and suicidal allegation but at the end of it it is a beautiful and I think happy story about a kind of spiritual journey that ends with a certain kind of profound peace and grace and I think it's a good listen Thomas where did you grow? I grew up in Bethel Connecticut which is not too far away from the city And what was your upbringing like I grew up in a Roman Catholic household. Much like yourself My mother was Italian. A Roman Catholic. My father was Irish Catholic same here exact same Mother had two siblings. My father had eleven siblings. Wow that's real Irish Catholic. Oh absolutely not messing around committed to the cause. Yes yes and did you grow up going to church? I did absolutely every Sunday. I was an altar server From an early age I really definitely had a call in to some sort of ministry and And then when did you You went to high school. I went to college. What'd you study in College So I studied religious studies and English in college? So you were. You felt some calling to God and Pastoral Work. Pretty early absolutely and I went to college after my time. The Marine Corps actually okay. Yeah Oh wow so. You're in the Marine Corps. I I did UNDERGRAD. And then you did difficult. Yes I went to the Marine Corps right out of high school wide. You do that so I got kicked out of a Catholic high school and again I wanted to be a priest but I really didn't see any educational opportunities Again at the same time I wanted to become a priest. I I don't know if you remember the ninety s commercials of the Marine fighting the Dragon But it really got into my romanticism. I had this idea that would become a marine and people would see value in me because of my service plus I am somebody who really value service. I want to serve my country in a time of war but there's also a masculinity component attached to when you're insecure eighteen year. Old Kid How do you prove things to yourself? And I don't care what anybody says. You become a marine because you want to be a marine. Yeah I mean. Were there people in your family members who've been marines? No no marines in my family. Can I ask what you got kicked out of school for sure? I was selling marijuana. That'll do it. Yeah that will do especially those Catholics with zero tolerance. So is there kind of excuse the expression come to Jesus moment in which like you got kicked out and it was like off to the Marines. Thomas no actually. I was very religious in high school and it was one of the odd things because most of the time when you have some sort of reputation during high school people treat you differently but I was very religious godly drug dealer basically. Actually I was very unique kid. Sounds like so you are very religious. You're also dealing. We'd absolutely yeah. Yeah and so what was that? What was what was the fallout like in your household when that happened. Sure so I really want to be clear that I have the best parents in the family and the entire world I four brothers and sisters that are the best But it was a situation and now as I'm older I can empathize with my parents And because I see parents go through the in my ministry now I actually have parents that are dealing with the followed their child dealing with the same consequences from the same actions. And so I'm in a position to be able to speak to the reality of future in a different more positive way. What did you like wasn't a big deal? I guess it was a really big deal. My parents really didn't know what to do with me. I suffered from depression Very early age and I was just I was very difficult for them to Give me the opportunities I needed to succeed. And when they when you told them you wanted to enlist in the marines were they supportive of that No I wasn't like Oh. He's back on the straight and narrow. It was like. Oh No these are. These are a set of bad decisions. Compounding each other Yes so I was seventeen years old. So you're not allowed to join when you're seventeen overs So my mom had signed the contract and she signed in blue ink because that is not legal and so the recruiter to keep coming back to my house. Amazing to make her sign the papers Because she really did not want me to Joined the Marine Corps. But you did. I did and I became an infantry. Marino's now enjoyed it You deployed to Afghanistan Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq I Iraq was. I am what was like to find yourself at that age as an infantry marine in a war zone sure so this was two thousand eight. The Iraqi civil war was just really getting hot They started ignoring Coalition troops Us troops But what they would do is they would attack Iraqi police and Iraqi security forces right in front of us and it was very interesting from now. I'm going to try and put my perspective. Instead of some sort of you know mature person being an eighteen year old in Iraq was very difficult. Especially at the time it was part of President Bush's surge into Allenby Province province out where you were. Yes yes so. You're in this sort of the the hotbed of Suny essentially resistance right right outside of Palooza in Marsha I I'm sorry not Marcia in Karma Iraq and And you know I was a saw gunner. I carry a machine gun and I'm not the biggest guy if you can't tell And it was very difficult There was a lot of situations outside of just the situation. We were in that very difficult for me So finding myself as a young infantry marine You know especially dealing with very difficult topics at a very young age We lost one of our first marines two days before Christmas in two thousand eight Thomas TJ Riley. He was a fellow lay minister with me so we led prayers and I think for any eighteen year old to question. Mortality is very difficult And now understanding as the thirty year old that you are going to live a long time and you have to plan for the future was different than being an eighteen year old and Iraq. Because you just plan for the next step in front of you and so there was no sort of temporary or long term. Planning it was just. How do I survive the day? What did he do your faith to start dealing with death? Either of civilians or Iraqi soldiers or American Marines that you were serving with sure so all start by going forward to TJ's memorial. I think it all affected us very individually In the battalion Tj was a very personable guy. He was very social. He was very kind very smart. And so we all question this individually but when I saw his family at the memorial it caused me to understand again that temporarily that yes. Tj I will miss very deeply a for a long time but I cannot see of brother or sister or mother not waking up and missing. Their CHILD MISSING THEIR SIBLING. So it began. I see the ripples of how. Tj's life was so much bigger than anything I could ever imagine and and I think a lot of people can react negatively with their faith when confronted by that sort of trauma. I was very fortunate to experience some sort of failure when I was young to build resiliency and to try and look for You know the positives in a situation like that. Can I ask how? Tj was killed Yes sorry so. He was in Karma proper And because he was a very kind kind man he had the Humvee door open and he was Conversing with locals and they threw a pineapple grenade and it blew his face off. Yeah how did you deal with the F? I've talked to a lot of folks that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and particularly that kind of irregular warfare The deep sense of fear from the trail that you don't know where things are gonna come from absolutely and also the ridge the rage of of people who you didn't expect necessarily to to shoot you or to come at you like. How did you deal with that? So I think what you're speaking to is the sense of impotence that I think is On a much larger scale Really the definition of this global war on terror There's a sense of Where are we accomplishing? What we're trying to accomplish and so on the smaller scale when you see a friend get killed. What is the response? What are the things that you can do to make yourself feel better And the and try and make the world around you a better place and well that gets into Afghanistan. I think that that Iraq was a little bit better because I was still a little removed from the local populace. We write a company FOB. It was a little bit Again a less of a kinetic war we were in in Iraq but when we got to Afghanistan the operational tempo. That anger did the anger. You're speaking to did come out and it was something and I and I apologize because I will be a little theological in my language if that Dodo party. That's why you're here Yeah I think one of the things about that. Anger is is very sinful and what anger does is. It prevents me from being in relationship with you. Because there's an obstacle and that's what senators And so when you day after day have an operation in Tampa when you're not sleeping. You're not eating your going out on patrol. You're worried about idees you're finding ID's and you're not able to bring the fight to the enemy which is what we want to do. As an infantryman we want to be offensive. It does make you very angry and I noticed when we got to Afghanistan. We had this thing where we smiled waved. And you smile and wave at anybody and they will smile and wave back at you if you smile and wave at the most ruthless Taliban warlord they will smile and wave back and you because they don't expect that to me it is and there was a time where we couldn't smile and wave and that's personally you know. I'm a passionate guy. I'm not an angry person And when I noticed that I was angry that was me recognizing that sin was really creeping into my life that I was not able to be in relationship with God You know and I should say that you know it now. Currently we're we're called to love our enemy obviously I can understand I can. I can comprehend while why someone in Afghanistan why someone Iraq would try and fight. Americans I can empathize with that. I can have the imagination To put myself in the shoes of there are some things in today in the world where I can't empathize with why people act in baton maith where we see this in in the national political world or just in our Mike in tiny little communities again I can I can see God in on the battlefield but sometimes I can't see God in just the littlest things here when you're in Afghanistan Iraq deployment and as he said that's a more kinetic situation Id's attacks from Taliban insurgents on you. When you talk about that empathy is that. Is that a thing that you were able to experience in in the midst of being deployed absolutely and I think again i. I don't know if this is unique to my Roman Catholic upbringing which I value greatly to inspiring these ideas of justice but I watched Afghan girls hide from their uncles while they worked in the forums. Trying to teach themselves how to read with text books. I watched kids go to school and get their heads cut off and then the next day more kids went to school or the Taliban saw that they were flying kites and cut their heads off. And then the next day there'd be more kites So I saw Real real injustice and if forced me to have to see a way ahead you I think if I'm not mistaken on twitter a picture of you yeah absolutely bunch of Afghan boys yes Tell me about those boys. Sure so again like I said I like to smile and wave and today I am You know my job is to be an associate minister of Children Youth and families. I have always thought about my little sisters when I was abroad or deployed. I love children. I coached when I went to high school. I wanted to be the catcher in the Rye that that weird kid in high school. That's what I wanted to do And so when I was in Afghanistan I also spoke Pashto so I was brought to school while in the Marine Corps walls and infantrymen To Learn Pashtu really yes So dance on easy. Well let's get you know good at languages you know. I'M NOT GONNA lie and that's the thing it's actually my brushing up on my Arabic right now and I'm surprised I was not as rusty so I'm playing going Bronco and March. I was very surprised. My reading writing still there. So after enlisting you the Marines train you in in languages sure so in Hawaii stationed Hawaii with First Battalion Third Marines and before we deployed to Iraq. They sent a few guys to Arabic training for cultural training. Just really basic basic training and you know they sent me. I had a higher. Gt Score. Higher score was from Connecticut. So they're like well he probably knows how to read. And Yeah. It's the Marine Corps and so I really was pretty good at Not not the best at all And I didn't have much opportunity to use it as well because of we were much more mobile than Iraq In vehicles but in Afghanistan we lived with Iraq or Afghan police And and because I had done well with Arabic. They said all right. Let's send you to a little bit better of a program a little bit more intensive to learn Pashtu and because I used it so often it became very very easy for me to speak. Pashtu because you were you were side by side with Afghan police speak Pashtu and you had a little bit of training but the amount of practice he must've been doing was off the charts right. I mean you're asking it all the time and you know they absolutely have a great aptitude for languages too so they could pick up English. We could work a lot alongside them a good infantry platoon. That is a little bit more cooperative. Actually THEY CAN LEARN. Pashtu a lot easier than I think most people realize if they want to and so you got pretty good it did it did and you were. I mean that must be an amazing thing because I'm always struck by part of the insanity of American wars abroad is that we take a bunch of people often be eighteen year olds like yourself and we put them Dick in the world of counterinsurgency training. It's like it's not just that you're supposed to go there and you're supposed to you're supposed to shoot at the enemy but also like essentially a mayor of this town and like deal with the political ramifications like crazy task. American soldiers and Marines so I took a class with general crystal at Yale and it was about leadership and he was actually my ISAF commander at the time. I was in Afghanistan. So the idea is we have a department of. State that is the people who are supposed to be educated and are the ones who are supposed to be diplomatic those are. That's our diplomatic arm. But we're sending eighteen and nineteen year old with guns to do counterinsurgency so I was in this class and I was like. Hey why don't we just train? Eighteen and nineteen year olds. Do like be diplomats. They can still have guns. They can still be in your guys but let's give them a little bit more cultural training And I understand why we can't do that and But I I think that eighteen year olds in nineteen year olds. Going back to the question is because of their lack of perspective on the world. It's very easy to other an in their uttering Y- their morality and ethics can change because our morality and ethics are are taught by. How do we treat our neighbor? And how do we? How do we behave in our community and so when you take somebody who is barely learning how to behave in their community into a completely different world and telling them you need to locate close with and destroy the enemy? It's very possible. Moral injury is going to be a very common thing. We're going to deal with and language seems to me key there because if you don't have language and it's people often screaming at you you know you go into a house on a rate and there's a bunch of people that are screaming at you hitting you with their shoes and and everything is literally foreign. That having the bridge of language probably does must have meant a lot to. You must have totally changed your experience absolutely. But here's where I'm not to disagree. Body language is so huge. Interactions with people. You don't speak the same language too so again going to if you want to get along with the people that you're working with you can get along. We got a smile and wave. But you are absolutely one hundred percent right that when you have that language when you can articulate and understand you can empathize and you can comprehend And so for me to be able to have a conversation with a fifty six year old guy. Who's like I fought the Russians like? I don't care that you're here. You're not going to be here in ten years from now which we are there. Ten years from now but but again the temporarily. He's much more aware of the long term that we are problems are very local and very real and you are not going to be the ones to solve them. Yeah so these boys that you met sorry. I really worked hard to get away from Alan. I know I know I'm staring you back to. I don't know it's hard to tell it's not it's not I developed a relationship with them. they followed me on patrol all the time. So where were you in Afghanistan This was Maher Mar right outside of Marcia in Nawa Afghanistan guy so They liked to bring politicians there because they could walk around the local market and say that it was safe and so now I was part of President Obama's surge in Nawa Afghanistan and so this was a few months before the battle of measure which was one of the largest battles At the time in Afghanistan and really to show that there was progress. I think a lot of the the point of the battle was was to show especially media that we're making progress here and so we were in on the outskirts of that city for seven months with a variety of contact patrols security patrols constant post and so we grew very close to our local populous because we lived with them. There were twenty eight of US Marines living with twelve to twenty Afghan police officers and so we got very close I began started to be known from the locals as Burke Muhammed Because I wore a scarf that was checkered That represented that you've been on a hajj And so they and they thought I was Persian because I had this Iraqi accent And I could speak pretty good. Pashtu and I might have been a little lax on my grooming standards And so I I pride myself in that other in myself from the Marine Corps as well. I really tried to differentiate myself and be my own individual and that allowed me to build these relationships with these locals positive and negative because the negative is when you go to a town that you had never been to village that you never been to and they're like oh you're burke Mohammed. It's a little scary. Yeah that's scary and so when you when you recognize that people are talking about you and we knew the Taliban was operating. They knew they were talking about us. we could hear them on their outcomes so that began to be a little scary but I felt like for a variety of different Ways I could be some sort of you know positive and bathurst these kids that were not just these random people with guns walking in your backyard. Because that's what we were and so if that meant removing my kier and getting down to my skivvies shorts and jumping in the canal and going swimming with them. I was going to do that to humanize us to them. And so you know they really began talking to me and they would follow me on patrol which did comfort me Because I felt like now it's GonNa kill me if I'm around kids right. Yeah that's not. Yeah that's probably not right now But I you know it mess with them like I'd I'd hang out I'd I'd run or walk and then Iran and I'd walk and so they were really happy to be with me and I was happy to be with them and so yeah they would find Eighties they would find like explosives and they would bring him to the base or two of Marines attention and so they found an RPG warhead in a canal and they were taking it out and it exploded on them And that really is rough Did they they died. They died Eight of them is that right. Yes yes so. Yes so our platoon had to go clean that up And there's a level of failure you go to anger before about impotence or or lack of ability to respond And I was really sad I was really sad and I'm still very sad about it and the reason that it's not it's obviously difficult to talk about. Like what am I But but because they were human beings Because I think I believe in my heart that their kids like that today right now who Are the same sort of tough that WANNA be free that Wanna live their lives And so yeah I just want to empower kids like that And like I said I wanted to be the catcher in the Rye and I let those kids fall those kids And so that was really hard and still is very hard but I work very to build resiliency and kids to make them leaders in their community because for a variety of reasons kids are not the future of the world today of the world It's the only people they don't have any agency they are completely controlled by other people and we don't teach consent very well because we touch kids. We expect them to hug us and in doing so. We're saying it's okay to just touch people It's okay and so and I really apologize for this but I really love kids a lot and I am so I devoted my life to being somebody that is the catcher in the Rye so I don't feel again I can only imagine I mean I I find this obviously is just the receptacle here of your story so it's very difficult to hear and up three three kids so I it's funny when people talk about like when you're a parent all this stuff hits differently and like it feels like such a ridiculous abstractly shaped like nothing in the world is truer that I can't you know it's very hard anything with Andrea Children when you have kids But that that must have really done a number on you spiritually emotionally. You know it did. I became very sad Suicidal because again going to what are what am I gonNA do. What what do I have power over? What can I do and I failed and so I began using a lot more hash because again we're not sleeping. We're not eating and is pretty plentiful always very careful and I spoke the language so no one knew what I was saying when I could go to a car and be like hey do you charge Raka like. Do you have any hash? And that brought me to a situation where I sat at the banks of the Helmand River and stuck a barrel of my suppressed weapon into my mouth and try to pull the trigger I was very lucky that I was saved by a very very close friend who actually beat the shit out. Sorry it took you say beat the shit out of me in Iraq over something randomly. Totally different physically. Beat you beat me out with a fire extinguisher. And then he saved my life in Afghanistan so It's funny how the World War came upon you. Yeah so he. It was one night and we were getting up for patrol again. We during the battle of margit we want to have an operational tempo where we were on for twenty four seven patrols in twenty four seven post so there was always in the presence of marines outside of the wire even in our little area outside of Marcia and so we had just gotten back from patrol and I was really excited because I heard that we had like three hours of sleep which meant like maybe I could take boots off three hours before patrol and and I was like whatever and so I ended up getting woken and like an hour later. And so you gotta you gotTa you wake everybody up and go out to patrol whatever and I. As soon as I woke up I started crying because I was physically emotionally spiritually exhausted. Just just spent and groom. He was the one who woke me up and notice. There was something wrong with me He was one of my best friends and he knew that there was not. There's something was wrong with me. And so he told Griffin who is taking over for him on. Watch and keep an eye out for Tom. Keep an eye out for Thomas and I just. I didn't put any of my gear on. I just grabbed my rifle and dragged it outside of the wire I left base and I started walking off into the Afghan countryside and Griffin followed me. He yelled my name and followed me. And and as soon as we embraced. I cried harder than I've ever cried in my entire life And it does bring me back there a little bit It was a really really hard night and that was not done with Afghanistan. After that. It's not like Oh yeah. This is really bad. You had a suicide attempt. You're done and also I wouldn't have wanted to be done now you know. I wouldn't want to go on. I wouldn't have wanted to have someone take care of me. Which is what I needed. I wanted to continue to fight with my brothers and so that's what I did. I still had about three more months of left of the depoyment and I just tried as hard as I can. I use a lot of drugs and and then I ended up getting caught by my platoon sergeant and when they were very aware that we were using marijuana obviously in representations of Vietnam. This is like a ubiquitous part of the reality of what Vietnam was and representations of that. Us Servicemember doing a ton of drugs. What what was it like in your sure so combat obscure came out a few months ago and I actually got. A comment obscure was a documentary. that a rea- combat camera marine made. Oh Yes yes so. I actually did a little bit with. Nbc News About It. We had an interview with roundtable of marines responding to it. I was the only infantry enlisted marine and I was like yeah that was my combat deployment. It was using Hash using drugs and so our our command was aware of that but one of the anxieties they had was to not bring that back to Hawaii when we when we left and so so I got caught the week. We were supposed to leave because they were really cracking down. Then and so. That's interesting like it's if you're doing this here it's one thing and we're going to kind of look the other way but you bring it back and then you've crossed some line. Yes that we're not gonNA look the other way for yes which kind of goes to behavior in at home and abroad right so. I kind of platoon had their scapegoat. Their marine that ended up getting caught and getting other than honorably discharged from the ring core So they they just come upon you. They search your bag or something found. Hasher searched. My bag found Hash And then you got a bad. What's called a bad paper discharge? Yes so that was also a really long long situation So you have a lot of money when you get back from a combat deployment when you're twenty one years old. I turned twenty one Germany on the way home And I had a lot of money and I was also very very affected by what I had seen and so when I got home and my life was ending because I was about to get kicked out the Marine Corps and hit you very hard. It hurt my identity. You don't have an identity outside of being a marine. And they told me I failed at that so I came back and I was prescribed medication. that was an anti depressant and it ended up making me very Mac So I ended up taking out most of the thirty thousand dollars. I'm being Afghanistan spending on cocaine and I went from Hawaii to California to hear home to New York and Connecticut where I again had suicide attempt and that was very difficult and I agreed to go back to my command if they punished me because they weren't punished me. That's the reason I left in. The first place was they. Were actually holding me accountable. And letting me move on with my life and so I said if you throw me in the brig when I get back I'll come back and so this is after the suicide attempt this after the so you just to be clear on the timing here. You're on your way home. Yes you go through Germany and you spend a ton of money on cocaine and drugs you are obviously in a very bad yes emotional psychological and spiritual stating you attempt to kill yourself in Connecticut. Are you hospitalized after that? Or do you get some treatment after that. Yes I do. Get hospitalized here And then that's from where I returned a again under the agreement that they would actually have some sort of judicial judgment on that was. I'm I'm I did wrong and I'm willing to be punished and we want to be punished so that. There's some sort of formal accountability with you and this institution that I have tremendous love in connection to the United States marine core. I don't want to just be like kicked out of it now or I do that. I can move on with my life right But let me go. And they weren't because they had just got back from deployment and so they were dealing with other things than just dealing with the punishment for some kid and so my mother was in the parade and Pearl. Harbor got then Congressman Christopher Murphy involved and that was actually the only step that got them to do anything so I just WanNa be clear now. You're the suicide attempt happens in Connecticut. Yes and you are hospitals. You get treatment and then you get flown to Pearl Harbor to go to the break. Yes yes and then I get hospitalized after that to how long are we in the Brigham Pearl Harbor Thirty Days? Yes what was that like not easy again? If you tell somebody when they learn about Pearl Harbor that you will one day be naked on suicide. Watch their with somebody watching you. Twenty four seven and you're not allowed to wear clothes probably wouldn't believe them also presumably undergoing some physical withdrawal. Oh absolutely oh big time. And so it was a very Difficult experience it was very humiliating shameful and embarrassing and so when I was in the break again now Senator Murphy got involved. And who's been a champion of other than honorable discharge issue and his staff actually got them to finally move and so one of the things because they knew they were being watched by a congressional office was they offered me to go to. Rehab in exchange for an other than honorable discharge. So we will treat you for your substance abuse. If you accept and other than honorable discharge and I am twenty one years old and want to move on with my life and I wanna get help and so I say yes. And so at the time there was a law that says if you had. Ptsd or symptoms. You can't be given another honorable discharge. We're finding that that's not been followed at all. I mean my God I mean obviously i. It just seems to me like an. I'm a total. This is just a pundit here but I mean like obviously you had. Ptsd and I mean. I actually had sixteen diagnosed from Navy psychiatrists saying that. I HAD PTSD but they ended up having an anesthesiologist saying that. I don't even though in his not says while he has adjustment disorder which might develop into PTSD so that was a law that was passed in two thousand fourteen. The anesthesiologist no longer can make that decision. And this is just just that people who don't know this this area of policy conflict just to read them in on it thank you. There are a lot of veterans. Like yourself with bad. It's called bad paper charges. And if you have a bad paper discharge everything about your post service. Life becomes way way way more difficult. Va Care all sorts of benefits and from the reporting. I've done and looking issue. There's just a a huge percentage of those folks at that paper. Discharges are people that are somewhat similar to you that are clearly dealing with undiagnosed trauma often substance abuse and then find themselves in the situation which the services are saying to them. Look you fucked up. We want you and this isn't combat related. This isn't something that that happened to war. Even when I think in a lot of cases there's a pretty good argument was absolutely and so that's one of the anxieties to about possibly further in a war with a different country with Iran Is when if we are going to increase our operational tempo and our troop movement. You will see a rise in administrative separations that we've seen since World War Two. It's been a tool that commanders can use to remove troops. That are misconduct dating or not. Or they're not exactly what they need to be to be combat combat ready and so Commander can just arbitrarily removed them to get a fresh good trip And so it's been a tool and yes it especially affects. People are communities of Color affected prior to. Don't ask don't tell The lgbt community right because it becomes essentially an administrative way of dealing with someone. That you that you're at your wit's end about or you don't like for exactly and so. We hold our commissioned officers in this nation very high trust and so we trust them to make the correct decisions and we give them policy to guide them to do that. And I think that that's why these policies have been codified into law and that we should continue to follow. So you're twenty one. You take this other than honorable discharge. You get Rehab. Yes how whereas? Where does we have happened? Rehabs in San Diego California where I get sober for the first time and did you get sober. I did at the time. I'm not sober now right but you. You felt like there was a there was a bit of a page turning in your relationships too substances absolutely. I was at a Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program ran by the Department of Defense. I was the youngest person. There was the only one who had been deployed into combat and everyone was like thirty forty year old guys who had been in the Navy Air Force Army Marine Corps for twenty years and looked up to me for some reason. They saw me as somebody who had gone to combat and And so it was odd to me that when I stood up and told my story that people listen to me And so that is where I learned that I can articulate things and that other people can't So the injustice we are talking about with bad conduct discharges. I have the opportunity to articulate that so that we can actually get some sort of justice. Where a lot of people either don't have the ability of the capacity or they don't have the power or privilege I do. Yeah Twenty one old. You have deployed twice. Yes you have the discharge from the ring core. You've had a substance problem you have. I think probably untreated. Ptsd do move back. East and go to Undergrad. Yup absolutely go into my Parents House parents basement which is where everybody goes And I didn't have any benefits so I wasn't able to out to sea out to see I was really lost. Fortunately the veteran's affair or the VA or veterans administration saw all of my combat records all of my military records and very quickly recognized that I had PTSD and that my service for them was considered honorable so that allowed me to get a disability rating. Gave me access to the? Va which gave me access to a program called vocational rehabilitation which gave me access to the shadow which allowed me to apply to an undergraduate degree. And you went to Undergrad College. I graduated from Sacred Heart University in two years because I was afraid that the government would say you are not allowed to have these benefit. Hell so I to race. Oh yeah eight classes a semester and you laid her. I ended up actually living with I with a roomful or a house of girls and then Live with a few veterans on campus as well and actually again that's where I started sort of my world of advocacy again being able to have a conversation with administrators with professors teachers. That other people weren't able to and so be doing so leading the way for other veterans. Too dumb come in and reintegrate themselves into society so then you decide to go to divinity school you become a pastor and I want to talk about that right after we take this quick break a wise this happening listeners. It's mainly MSNBC correspondent and host of the new podcast into America. What happens if you're one of the more than two million? Americans sitting behind bars as owner virus spreads this week. I talked to a Colorado woman who is struggling to remain in contact with her incarcerated husband that I don't know what's going on. I don't know is he? Okay is e CIG. So it's like we're trying to live our lives like we normally would but how? Keanu and beeline NBC producer. Dan Slepian takes US inside New York. Sing Sing Correctional Facility to me. Jj Burlesque Queens. An inmate who describes how prison dynamics are shifting as fears of outbreak. Grow prison is a place where like when this tension can feel the tension and you can feel the year when you walk around and subscribe for Free. Wherever you get your podcast. Hi everyone it's joy reid host of. Am Joy on MSNBC. Did you know you can listen to? Am Joy and all your favorite MSNBC shows as podcasts. You can catch up on the beat with Ari. Melber the Rachel Maddow. Show the eleventh hour with Brian Williams and more anytime on the go. Search for your favorite. Msnbc shows wherever you're listening to this podcast and subscribe for free. Thanks for listening so you graduate in tears now at this point. What is your relationship to God and to your your faith so going back to my foundation. I was very fortunate to be brought up in a very Roman Catholic household That's not a sentence that is always uttered that way. No it's not. What if I'm somebody who tries to see the positive? I feel the same way. I feel very extremely grateful for my Catholic upbringing. You know my father was a jesuit seminarian for six years. His uncle was Ah Jesuit and had been a President Loyal University and my my dad's parents went to mass every day. I mean they were very very religious people and I grew up in the church and and I feel grateful for that. Lots of people don't necessarily feel that way and I. Obviously I'm not a practicing Catholic now and not raising my kids that way so I have some ambivalence about too but but I'm in the same place. I'm grateful for what that upbringing was absolutely and so I really appreciated that. And it really. Not just informed my spirituality but gave me good knowledge. We talk about this. Catholic intellectual tradition and there is a long long strain of intellectual or Catholic intellectual tradition which I had access to and so my identity now as mainline liberal Protestant is informed by my tradition as a Roman Catholic. And I think really really to my benefit and so for my entire life. I always had a great relationship with God. I always even when I was depressed growing up as a teenager I could yell at God could get angry at God but God was always there and then I had a lot of experiences which brought me closer into the Holy Spirit so we for me the Holy Spirit. You know we get this feeling when we are standing up for justice when our when our ears get flushed and we're doing something powerful That's difficult when we're being courageous when we're standing up for others. Were speaking truth to power. The Holy Spirit is moving through US and so I got to see that and feel that in different ways and so I am somebody who thinks again. I have a very close relationship with God. The Father Holy Spirit and then Jesus Christ is became human so that we could know him and he did things you mentioned on previous shows that he said some really nice things about caring for the poor and other things about caring for Refugees and immigrants injures he did these things and so I like that. Because that's real for me and the resurrection as well as real so when we talk about failure when we talk about anger and death and grieving and and these eighteen nineteen year olds who are fighting our wars and really killing something part of their souls. I am faith that believes in resurrection and that resurrection and resiliency is so important in order to build a life in the future. I have a really had a really strong relationship with God and I was very fortunate for that even when I was said even today. When I'm sad I can pray to God and I can feel better today. I see God more and people in Genesis. We learned that we were all created in the image of God. And if you look at the human race we're very diverse. We are very pluralistic. We all believe different things. We look differently and that is how I celebrate. God God is so much greater than anything we can ever imagine and so people who try to make God smaller or define. What you can doesn't it does. I don't comprehend that because human capacity can understand the God that I worship and so this Trinitaria in God this God this Jesus Christ that calls us to ransom captive to set the oppressed free to do these things. gives me the imagination for a world where the lion sleeps with the lamb where nations are under one banner. And I think that that's one of the important. Things is having an imagination for a world that doesn't exist today. Having a world of imagining a world where there are no prisons. Imagine a world where there are no guns I think It's really hard for us to have an imagination about that world When we want justice when we wanna feel better and so that's I think where I am today With my relationship with God is seeing the beauty and the wonder and things but also seeing God in the The sadness and in in destruction. And you know I'll give them a shout out my confirmations. I ask them every week. Where did you see God and one of them yesterday? Saw God just in. They had crocuses that they were worried was GonNa die over the frost and they didn't and they saw God in something surviving through a difficult situation. I mean this is. It's very inspiring and beautiful to me and I. I think I often wish that I had a faith like that or or relationship to God like that which I don't think I've ever really had. But what was it in you after you graduate? That said I want to basically make this my calling. I mean that I'm going to go to divinity school and be and this is going to be the thing that I do sure so I wanted other people to feel that way I think this is a world that is suffering. This is a world. I think we're all hurting. We're all sad sometimes and I want people to be able to see resurrection. I want people to understand that there is life after failure and so you know I got away from the Catholic faith because You know I didn't agree with a lot of the way that Leadership kind of presented themselves into the world. We live in today and so it kind of opened up a whole world for me And again going back to. I believe one of my guests is I can talk. I have the ability to articulate things. And so how as Thomas? Can I do the best for the world? What is the thing I can do? That uses my power my privilege. Where can I do the most good and so I thought really hard about that? I wanted to be a teacher. 'cause like I said I taught I saw the little Afghan girls and I was like well. If you teach girls how to read you save the world so I was good with that and then I recognized that maybe I could do something a little bit more a little bigger and so I love the fact that my calling is to preach the good news of the Gospel the good news of Jesus Christ because I believe it is good news but also it gives me an opportunity to work with people outside of just the Christian world And to be again that same ambassador. I wasn't Afghanistan to be an ambassador for my faith to show what we really can do as a Christian community and to make the world a better place you go to Yale Divinity School and become a pastor in the United Church of Christ which is a mainline Protestant church and you are now. What is your practice like now? What like what's the day in your life like sure so today. I taught a senior center class about religious freedom yesterday in the morning we had church. Obviously where's your church in Weston Connecticut? So you you're the pastor of a church in Western Connecticut. I am the associate minister. So much More wiser and and grand and better Senior Minister Okay. Sergeant there ex. Oh actually he was the chaplain of the navy. Okay yeah like being as EXO. So we had our annual meeting which is conducts. The business of the Church for the year later on I had To my house to have a little quiz about the history of Christianity Today like I said I taught religious freedom to seniors Tomorrow we'll have a staff meeting But more in terms of the less practical in more spiritual prayer la I pray for people I recognize now that praying for people who you may not like actually helps you like them. You can develop a relationship with a person and love them just by thinking about them and reflecting on them And I think that that's very important again using that imagination to imagine somebody to empathize with somebody else. And then I preach I love preaching preachings favorite things in the entire world Because it uses those skills I gained as an English guy to do critical analysis of taxed. And then give some sort of message that I believe is going to move my congregants closer to each other and to God and I really enjoy doing that and so I'm very happy with the life that somehow after that whole story Emerged that I'm in a a wonderful place. Where like I mentioned if there are kids going through situations that I did. I get to be the one that say. This is okay that I love you that I'm GonNA listen to you that you're safe and it's very rewarding it's difficult. It's absolutely difficult. But it's very rewarding pastor. Thomas Burke Junior is a pastor at the United Church of Christ heat to combat deployments with the Marine Corps one in Iraq and Afghanistan. And you can follow him on twitter as I do at. Tc Burke junior goes by space chaplain. Which is how I crossed my radar screen. Thank you very much. That was really great. Thank you very much Chris once again. My great thanks to Thomas Burke who you can find as TC burke junior on twitter. He's a pastor in the United Church of Christ who is also the CFO treasure of high ground. That's which is very cool organization. We love to hear your feedback. Tiffany champion Manning. The with body marriages with pottage. Email dot com and as always. We monitor the Hashtag a with pod on twitter. So send us your thoughts people. You'd like to hear from. I'm particularly interested in this question of. Are you seeking things other than the pandemic right now or are you just wanting just pure constant pandemic content going into your ear holes? Like little virus-infected travels. Why did I take that metaphor all the way I did? Why is this happening is presented by MSNBC AND NBC News produced by all in team and features music? By any cooper. You can see more of our work including links to things we mentioned here by going to NBC News Dot Com Slash Wise. This happened. Hey everyone it's Dylan byers from NBC News on my new podcast buyer's market. I'm you behind the scenes of the rapidly changing world of technology and media. I sit down one on one with powerbrokers like facebook's Sheryl Sandberg. Espn's Jimmy. Taro and media. Mogul Barry diller. To talk about their industry intersects with politics how they use consumer data to shape their product. And what they think. The Future of American culture holds search for buyers market. Wherever you're listening right now and subscribe.

Afghanistan Marine Corps Iraq Us Thomas twitter Connecticut Thomas TJ Riley Ptsd Taliban Undergrad Iraq MSNBC depression Chris VA Kate Shaw NBC Pashtu
"Bernie Has an Army"

Start Here

23:00 min | 6 months ago

"Bernie Has an Army"

"It's Wednesday February twelve and pay. Say this last week we have a winner. We start here. This victory here is is the beginning of the end but donald trump in a race begging for a defining moment Bernie Sanders wins. The New Hampshire Primary Bernie has an army me and trump has an army and nobody else does this race but this was supposed to winnow the field. Tell that to everyone. Packing their bags for Nevada will break down. What happens next prosecutors? Were ready to throw the book at him and the President tweeted. I think a very big deal. What prompted a dramatic reversal? By the Justice Department and why four prosecutors have suddenly stopped adopt working the case and they say this was more than just a controlling. Dad plays the plastic bag over her head and almost suffocated. How a New York man allegedly started a sex trafficking trafficking scheme out of his own daughters from ABC News? This is start here I'm Brad Milkey Polls about to close. I was here four years ago when Bernie Sanders one New Hampshire. We celebrated at this little high school cool. Jim last night is fan. Start pouring into his twenty twenty primary party this time. It's at a big university. University of Vincent. The foreseen communicated one thing to his supporters. No longer see him as a vendor. There's the first wave of results were revealed. It finally looked like a front feeling right now. Amazing Fade off. Oh my God. We've seen Bernie Sanders Anderson's shaped the entire Democratic Party. The last four years Medicare for all used to be alignment inspired cheers from hardcore fans. I rolls from lots of others. This time around every candidate was scrambling to have some sort of policy. That expanded Medicare style programs where we wanted their cannibalizing each other. Honestly it's great for us. I think it's going to slim down in Nevada so clear in his neighboring state Bernie Sanders fans told me this is it it's happening Bernie is becoming an inevitability the only question is who in Second Mayor Pita Twenty four but catching up Amy Klobuchar third-place twenty percents. She's very happy with that. But over the next several hours the numbers I kept trickling in from around the state from a lot of the more conservative counties out in rural areas and little by little you could see Mayor Pete gaining seventy four percent of the vote in very very razor thin margin between Mayor Pete and Bernie Sanders. It looks like about less than five thousand votes right now on this campus people were starting to get antsy that people. Es Nothing to offer as in my the opinion but a week after Iowa felt like a miracle to have votes continue to come in and within a few hours this is ABC News Election Update Update ABC news was able to project its lease andrus had survived. Good evening. We are coming on the air with breaking news from New Hampshire. ABC News can project that Bernie Sanders. Sanders has won the Democratic primary so after a week of wondering after a year of campaigning the first in the nation primary is done and this morning. Whether you are Clo- Char Dr America I'm Amy Klobuchar and I will beat. Donald trump seemed. This battle is still a simple one to convince Democrats across the country that you can take down president trump in November. Let's cap this off with ABC's Political Director. Rick Kline so rick we we know the top number we know who finished first second and Third Bernie Sanders close behind behind him. Pete Buddha Judge Than Amy Klobuchar is Bernie Sanders now the front runner for the Democratic nomination. Any traditional way of looking at this. You know you get the most votes in Iowa. You get the most most New Hampshire. Yeah you're the front runner. This victory here is the beginning of the end for Donald Trump. Actually he doesn't doesn't even have delicately people to jesuits hide their thanks to you a campaign that some said shouldn't be here at all has shown that we are here to stay sixty percent four years ago. This time got barely twenty five percent. I remember when we couldn't find a microphone. Cut less than Jimmy. Carter did which was previously the record for low there. There are still ballots left to count. We have beaten the odds every step of the way Amy Klobuchar wow she falls herself self into contention I mean. She was nowhere coming into last week. Then she has a strong debate. Voters are impressed. They turned to her. All those late deciders turning to her and now you have so many different candidates with angles. I think there's real flaws in all of their arguments have been exposed but a whole lot of different paths for Democrats that that might be the one that works. Okay so it's not like a runaway for Bernie Sanders. What do we learn about the second third I mean? Is there any hope for these fourth and fifth place candidates now the fate of Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden was something to behold. There are a lot of people that spent most of twenty nine thousand nine thinking the last two standing we just heard from the I. Two of fifty stays two of them. Not all the nation not half the nation not aww coordination not ten percent to two in the fact that Elizabeth Warren in neighboring state is is so far back in the pack and Joe Biden literally leaving the State rather than he's he. He went to South Carolina because he knew he was gonNA get waxed here and he did. He got wiped out. We're morning especially important phase because up until now we haven't heard from the most committed constituency Democratic Party the African American community now. He's putting all all his all of his chips on one play and that's called South Carolina where the African American vote So influential but there was nothing that you would have said at. The beginning of this is Joe Biden. Couldn't win here you're Elizabeth. Warren couldn't win here. It was a topsy turvy race. The polling suggested early on both of them would be very competitive. They were nowhere to be seen in the final vote. We wind right. Let's just give it back. Ah Let's celebrate it. This time celebrating. It was a lot of anxiety coming into the night about turnout. And I'll tell you. These numbers are okay. They're not great for Democrats. That's but okay. The the numbers look like they are higher than they were in two thousand sixteen. They're not gonNA reach two thousand eight levels and if Democrats are looking for signs about what does it mean that. We're so energized. What does it mean that we wannabe Donald Trump? They're going to look right here. New Hampshire battleground state where four electoral votes are very much in play this fall. They're going to say okay. We have signs of life recline to down like fifty fifty seven primaries to go. Thanks buddy thanks Brad we're now here with ABC's Deputy Political Director Maryalice parks because Maryalice in addition to covering this. You've also covered Bernie Sanders. You're on the road with them for like two years of your life. What do his people say to the idea? That convince. Seventy five percent of New Hampshire Democrats not to vote for him. They say he won. I mean you have to win. It's true that there's other candidates that have momentum absolutely early but he's turning out votes in giant fractured field. Winning is GONNA matter. I mean sure. It's really weird to win with barely early. Thirty percent of the vote. That's not normal but when you get somewhere like California every few percentage point translates to dozens of delegates and they're ready to look forward to the next State Bernie has an army and trump has an army. Nobody else does in this race. They feel like they have an infrastructure staff and money that that blows these other candidates out of the water. We talk about delegates for second. Because I I look up and your one of these candidates twenty dollars. Isn't the one thousand nine hundred seventy seventy to go to win this outright. How does that work and why do even see any of these guys is a front runner right? Now you're right now is just a story about stories. It's about headlines and momentum the delegate race is going to pick up the really really fast on Super Tuesday thirteen hundred and forty four delegates will be awarded. Yeah by the end of Super Tuesday. We're talking about forty percent of the pledged delegates being allocated so. It's a national race that day and that's why some of these teams that have had money and staff and volunteers around the country. Feel pretty good after the contest. Somebody like any clothes are still has such amounted to cloud. She had a one or two state. Operate right now. It's not impossible mountain to climb. I mean the headlines. Really help that I do WanNa know here is just the ground game. Senator Amy Amy. Kobe tour has one of the smallest field operations. Just six campaign offices. Thirty paid staffers sheet. Just now is raising big money. She's not to spend that money money wisely and very quickly to try to capitalize on this momentum and as long as we're talking delegates first second third they all get delegates fourth and fifth. You GotTa Get Fifteen Percent Sent Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden what to get. Do they get zero. Zero out of New Hampshire. Actually Elizabeth warm is one of the most interesting parts of the New Hampshire primary. We cannot afford to fall into factions. We can't afford to squander our collective power in her concession speech. She said that she was both pitching unity. But also promising the super long prolonged fight where two states in with fifty five states and territories to. Oh we still have ninety eight percent of our delegates for nomination up for grabs. Those sentiments are totally at odds with each other and I think she might get get some real blowback especially from Bernie Sanders supporters that are like. Hello you're progressive. Jump On this bandwagon with us. Help us over the finish line. You're going to fight this out to the end. Is there a detriment to the party. Their slogan was always fight. She just didn't know that she would have to fight beyond New Hampshire like this maryalice parks. Thank you thank and you heard both of our analysts. Say That just because voters are voting. That doesn't mean their concerns about these candidates magically go away right right before polls closed. Yesterday I met Kevin Casey. He's a carpenter Manchester. He just left his polling place with with ABC News. Let's get how's it going good. And he tells me after agonizing igniting he finally pulled the trigger for Bernie Sanders. Why's that because I don't think he's going to be able to take your trump but as he turns back to his car it almost tumbles out of his mouth and I didn't feel comfortable? Adapt Point Reykdal undecided in the voting in the booth excel. I sat there read the ticket like three times. He still doesn't quite know you. The best is next about start here. We are friendly. Moving on from New Hampshire an escort wife for prosecutors just stopped working the case against the president's associate If you don't know your numbers you don't know your business serious entrepreneurs and finance teams run on net suite by Oracle the the world's number one cloud business system. That's we'd offers a full picture of all your finances all in one place in real time right from your phone or your desktop schedule your free demo right now and receive their free guide seven key strategies to grow your profits at nets we dot com slash integrate. Set Up Your Free Demo and get your free guide today at net sweet dot com slash integrate back in Washington. We've been told by White House. Insiders guardrails are off of President Trump overnight e ambassador Gordon Sunland Donlan recalled from his post effective immediately. That came as lieutenant colonel. Alexander Vinson was escorted out of the White House barely early two days after he was acquitted by the Senate for his dealings with Ukraine he began to purge members of his administration. Who cooperated with Congress? Well let's go back a few scandals Dell's remember after the Muller reports. President trump was an actually charged with anything but some of his associates were Roger Stone. The president's longtime friend adviser and outspoken defender under facing seven felonies including lying to Congress obstruction and witness tampering. Well a few days ago prosecutors announce they are pursuing a big sentence against Roger Stone. Point seven to nine years in prison. Yesterday the president tweeted. He thought that was unfair and disgraceful recommendation. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Within hours hours we learned the Department of Justice had overruled the sentencing recommendation. They brought way down and as of this morning all for prosecutors. who were working? This have either. quit the case ace or quit the DOJ completely springing ABC News legal contributor. Kate Shaw Kate. Sentences get changed all the time. How big of a deal is this? You Know Brad this. Is I think very big deal. So presidents meddling in the Department of Justice is a very big deal and prosecutors. Resigning in protest is a very big deal so in nineteen seventy-three to take your listeners. Back a couple of decades one of the major turning points in the Watergate investigation into President Nixon actually involved resignation by DOJ officials in the face of presidential pressure issued his statement directing metric talks to make no further attempt. So the first Watergate Independent Counsel Archibald Richard Cox was trying to get access to President Nixon's Oval Office tapes and trying a little bit too hard for the president's liking half hour before this issue. I received the letter from the president instructing meeting give Mr Cox Order and to the president decided to fire the special prosecutor. So that's what's known as the Saturday night massacre You know I don't know if what this is going to go down in history as a Tuesday afternoon massacre but I do think it's a very big deal. There are strong norms in the Department of Justice Against Against White House interference particularly in Criminal Matters And if that's what happened here then that's a huge break with DOJ protocols. No I didn't speak to the just. I'd be able to do it if I wanted to. Have the absolute right to do it. I stay out of things to a degree. That people wouldn't believe what I didn't speak to him. I thought the recommendation station was ridiculous. And that's the if I want to adjust with you because the White House is insistent. This was not because of the president's influence this was decided before he even ever tweeted about it. I mean do you buy that like. Have you seen any evidence that backs that up. I don't think. DOJ has offered any evidence at least so far and timing is pretty suspicious so DOJ. Eight thousand sentencing. Memo on Monday the President tweets his displeasure and by Tuesday. There's a new filing arguing that the original recommendation was excessive. You've and didn't accurately reflect DOJ's position and DOJ has suggested that the line prosecutors on this case the ones who actually filed sentencing memo didn't fully advise main justice about their intend to seek this seventy nine year sentence but folks who've worked at DOJ who. I've spoken to you find that a little bit hard to swallow. This is such high profile case. It feels like a stretch to imagine that the hires up and DOJ wouldn't be kept loop about something as important as sentencing recommendation. Judge Jackson clearly frustrated and concerned after stone posted. A picture of her online in the corner looks like the crosshairs of a gun. And I suspect Amy Berman Jackson. WHO's the judge in this case is also going to have questions about what exactly exactly went down inside? DOJ approve. This sentence is not necessarily a done deal. Because that's what they're recommending. Well she actually is the one who decides what the sentence is all. DOJ's chase doing is making a recommendation and actually in their second memo. They don't even make a recommendation. They say the first seven to nine year recommendation was way too harsh but judge. It's up to you to decide what sentence is appropriate but in the course of deciding what sentences appropriate. The judge gets to run the show if she wants to ask. DOJ to explain the change engine position or to explain the withdrawal or resignation of all of the prosecutors who tried this case in front of her. She has every right to do that. And I suspect she will. In fact overnight. Donald Trump tweeted about this judge to ask him while she's on the case. Just showing an embolden presidents and it reminds me that nineteen seventy-three Richard Nixon was going into impeachment proceedings. Donald trump free and clear on his impeachment charges. Now Kate Shaw thanks so much. Thank you Brad. I was an Ra in college. A resident assistant and one of the things we'd always deal with was guests from outside the dorm kids complaining that now. The roommate was always bringing over their boyfriend girlfriend. Sometimes there were complaints about creepy or people hanging around. This was New York. City's she'd have to find out whether they'd actually been invited in. So imagine a parent constantly being around the dorm. How bad could that be worse? That's what helicopter parents. But that's kind of for the family work out right. That's what Lawrence Ray did way more than just disturbing it will infuriate you. These accused of preying on his daughters friends at Sarah Lawrence College yesterday in New York a story exploded loaded out of West Chester County home to the prestigious Liberal Arts College Sarah Lawrence as charges were filed against a parent of former student their. ABC's Aaron Katersky covers New York law enforcement. He's been working sources from here in Manchester so Aaron I mean what can you tell us Larry Ray effectively moved in to his daughter's his college dorm when she was a sophomore and ended up certainly overstaying his welcome but more than that according to federal prosecutors. He would subject checked people that his daughter new and others on campus to sexual and psychological manipulation and physical abuse race first victims victims were sophomores at college. Westchester county girls and boys young enough to be his children. Larry Ray had been in prison and he he had just gotten out and he moved in with his daughter and during a period that lasted ten years both while she was in in College at Sarah Lawrence and after in Manhattan and in North Carolina according to the criminal complaint he would mentally and physically torture porcher young people men and women with with physical abuse with psychological abuse and with sexual abuse. Then I mean Erin when you hear these charges these accusations from prosecutors. It doesn't sound like a really manipulative father. Sounds like a much more organized. Scary thing the way they tell it Brad. One of the the alleged victims mentioned in the New York magazine Article That touched off this whole investigation admitted that he was part of what he called a cult under the pretense of counseling. The victims ray inquired about intimate aspects of their lives and mental health managing to convince several of them that they were broken at that only rake. Break fix them. Someone who would learn the intimate details of someone's private life after gaining his victims trust. Ray turned on them. Falsely accused of harming him by attempting to poison him. Morton deliberately damaged his property according to federal prosecutors he would under the pretense of of helping them through their problems subject them to things like sleep deprivation to other kinds of psychological torture. Things that prosecutors said shock the conscience on one occasion as alleged rates high this victim to a chair place the plastic bag over her head and almost suffocated her and he would extort false confessions from these young people and then use those to extort money from this victim constrain hundreds of thousands of dollars from their parents savings accounts at raise direction from young people who open lines of credit who engaged in prostitution according to the indictment all to serve the needs and interests of Larry Ray. It's just shocking stuff. Do we know how the investigation began in the first place. This begin with with an article in New York magazine that was co authored by a student at Sarah Lawrence at the time. The article was entitled the Stolen Kids of Sarah Lawrence and it out lined effectively the same things that federal prosecutors outlined in the Indictment Sarah Lawrence put out a statement saying that after that article was published published. They conducted an internal investigation and found nothing to substantiate what the article alleged happened and yet federal prosecutors and the FBI found it when they began digging into it and they brought the charges against Larry Ray on Tuesday multiple counts of forced labor and sex trafficking appear before judge. Last night he did not enter a plea disturbing story Erica Turkey. Thanks so much for keeping an eye on thank you bread and one last thing. These Democrats still have a way to go so the biggest winner last night down in back might have been a poodle with best in show in the Westminster Kennel Club. Dog Show wrapped up at Madison Square Garden last night. If you hit a Fox sports commentators losing people four freaking out people knew these dogs by name. ABC Producer Franky Perez. Who Sat not among the peons but the true aficionados? It's so hard to explain because it's the same level of conversation. You have with with an avid football fan at their super bowl but he says his excited as people sounded there in the room. This was an upset. The Fan favourite was not the dog that won the show. Haven't named Bano and a golden retriever named Daniel. Obviously the golden retriever was named Daniel. We know that they we're both expected to be top dogs. Golden retriever wins. The REUSS GONNA come off but at the end of the day. CBA apparently had the respect of the dog show community nitty so this is actually CIBA's final. Show that she's part of she's retiring. She's like Oh this. Is the Tom Brady of dogs. Kurreck Tom Brady of dogs. And what would this year be without one. More surprise vote. Medina carried his best in group ribbon in his mouth. I mean how are you going to do them like that rough it. We are on our way back to our New York headquarters this morning so glad we were able to take you on the road with us for a little bit huge. Thanks to the tireless. David Ryan Kelly Tarez and Trevor Hastings for making it all happen on radio. Manchester New Hampshire. I'll see you tomorrow

Bernie Sanders donald trump President New Hampshire DOJ Brad Milkey ABC ABC News Bernie New York Elizabeth Warren Bernie Sanders Anderson President Nixon Joe Biden Sarah Lawrence New York magazine Amy Klobuchar Nevada New Hampshire Primary
Dire Straits

Start Here

21:50 min | 1 year ago

Dire Straits

"It's Friday, June twenty-first in on the longest day of the year. The world is holding its breath. We start here. Iran strikes, an American drone so will the US strike back? The attention is now on President Trump and what he's gonna do about it. What are the options and at what point is a conflict become a war? The key witness to an alleged war crime says he's actually the killer Gallagher did not kill him. I did this was not a courtroom drama. This was a real life bombshell, that could result in no one going to jail and the supreme court has so many monster cases, it's added more days to the calendar. I would say the biggest cases that remain really go to the core of the democratic process. Our legal team is getting you prepped for potentially huge day in DC from ABC news, this is start here. I'm Brad milkey? Brought to you by indeed used by over three million businesses for hiring, where business owners and HR professionals can post job openings with screener questions, than sort review and communicate with candidates from an online dashboard. Learn more and indeed dot com slash start here. This is a new wrinkle. This is a new fly in the moment. What happened? We've known for weeks that tensions between the US and Iran had been escalating. Let's just start a few weeks ago. Right. Iran has been suffering more and more from American sanctions. They make threats the US sends an aircraft carrier in their direction. Then Iran says it's going to cross a line at says we're going to start ramping up uranium enrichment. So the US sense, even more troops to the region, another line seems to get crossed for oil tankers including two from Saudi Arabia, or attacked at the entrance to the world's most important oil trading route for ships from other countries get bombed the US says suspects Iran, sending a message to the US at the same time we're seeing all these other groups aligned perhaps with Iran being accused of attacking other interest around the Middle East. So the US isn't about to negotiate with the Iranians here, but the Japanese our allies head to Tehran. And everyone thinks maybe this is the moment things calmed down. Instead, good afternoon. It is the assessment of the United States government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of a mon- today to more oil tankers for tat and one of them is Japanese. So all sorts of lines are getting crossed here, but the big bright line. The Iranian military hitting the American military that has still not happened yet will yesterday everything changed escalating crisis American thirties. Now confirming Iran shot down a US drone this morning saying it was flying in international airspace. An unmanned American drone was suddenly blasted out of the sky and last night, President Trump. We've learned ordered a strike, but then abruptly backed off, let's go straight to ABC's chief global affairs. Correspondent Martha Raddatz and Martha. Let's back up to the moment. This drone is shot down. Walk me through what happened, this shootdown happens headlines, all over the world, of course. And then about ten fifteen in the morning we here for the. First time from President Trump, very brief tweet saying, Iran made a very big mistake and just over an hour later. You heard from Iran's foreign foreign minister saying, we don't seek war, but will zealously defend our skies land and waters. That's when the US military wait in and they pinpointed where the drone was hit this twenty one miles from the Iranian coast, then we moved to the Oval Office. Go ahead question. And you hear from the president, again, this drone was in international waters. Clearly, we have it all documented, it's, but then there was this very strange. Turn from President Trump, I find it hard to believe it was intentional. If you want to know the truth saying, you know, it might have been a general or somebody who made a mistake, in shooting down the drone think that it could have been somebody who was loose and stupid. But remember, the Iranians are owning this, they are saying, we did it, and we did it for the reason that we believe it came into Iranian territorial airspace, that seems like the biggest initial question, right? Martha. Was this a foreign drone that went into Iranian territory or was our drone over international waters. Well, it depends on who you talk to the US says absolutely. It was in international airspace, over the strait of four we all know how important that straight is for the world's oil supply, the Iranians. However. Claim. It was in Iran, Ian, airspace, and that they had given radio warnings to have that drone get out of their airspace. Well, how dangerous is this to Iran? Like what does this look like to them, when we think of drones, I think we think of those small little drones that can be launched off ship. And, and, and you can hear them in the sky. This drone is nothing like that. This is a highly sophisticated drone a Global Hawk. It's the size of a seven thirty seven I was picturing something like, like just a little bigger than whatever you fly out of your backyard. These are definitely not, not drones. You could fly from your backyard, but they could probably see your backyard from way way, way up in the sky. They cost well over a hundred and twenty million dollars in also reminder here, we've, we've heard about so many attacks in the last few attacks on oil, tankers a rocket attack in Iraq. We've evacuated employees and diplomats from Baghdad. This. This is significant because the Iranians hit a U S military asset. And that's why the attention is now on President Trump and what he's gonna do about it. Well, that's the question on which we're hearing a lot of voices. Let's bring in a couple of other smart ones here Colonel. Steven Gerrard is ABC's military contributor ABC's. Mary Bruce is at the White House right now in Mary. Let's start with that question to the president. What are you gonna do about it, because in lawmaker certainly started away in? Yeah. And the president was getting some mixed messages coming out of the hill. Right. We heard on one hand Nancy Pelosi Democrats with a warning to the president saying there's no appetite for going to war in our country. And many Republicans were also urging caution saying that instead of taking a media military action. The president should be putting maximum pressure. It through some other means. But what's really interesting is that some of the president's top allies were encouraging the president to do more. We heard from Senator Lindsey Graham saying that a Ron needs to be ready for what he described as some severe pain of confident it would be. Be very devastating to the region will not be pretty don't wanna go there. But what do you expect the president to do you remember Lindsey Graham is someone who is in the president's ear often? He's someone that the president listens to on Capitol Hill, and he was sending the president, a clear message thing about Donald Trump as a dealmaker he's trying to board conflict. But this is truly a defining moment for him. But then Brad the president called them in to the situation room for this emergency briefing. Well, what happened in the sitting room? Well, we know that they spend a little more than an hour. It seems huddled inside the situation room receiving this intelligence briefing. And when they came out, we heard from Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who told reporters that the White House was engaged in measured responses. That's how he described it. But when we heard from Democrats, it was a very different message Chuck Schumer saying that he was worried. I told the president that these conflicts have a way of escalating. The president may not intend to go to war here, but we're worried that he and the administration may bumble into a war when overnight, we confirmed with sources the president, actually ordered this military strike on Iran. The wheels were in motion. It was happening. But then sources say the president pulled back, even though his national security advisor and secretary of state. We're both telling him to go ahead to go on, so Colonel Ganor. My question is, what are the options here, like just the defense department? Get the president a list of stuff they can do or what there is a list. And I think one of the things that is, is key about that list is this idea of proportionality as we've talked to the Pentagon over the past couple of weeks. They've talked to us about this idea of any kind of military response would be proportional. So, so don't, don't look for don't look for any kind of a massive bombing. I think one of the things that the White House will be looking at is a surface to air missile systems shot down this drone. And where is that surface to air missile system? Does that become target in his self in the past? There was some discussion about going after the small boats because of. The attacks before tax that of curd in the past months. Like that's the thing that fired us. That's the thing we're going to take out. Exactly. So we're not going to go out and take out their nuclear missile or nuclear enrichment sites just because of this shoot down. So it's been made pretty clear. I think both privately and publicly by both countries that they don't really want to get into an all out shooting match. And so there's a lot of chest pumping. But at some point, when you see the shootdown, I think that the White House feels that it's going to have to do something in response. I think the concern here if there is a proportional response, if they take out a surface to air missile site if it is an eye for an eye, and they don't go beyond that, or they go beyond that a little bit. There is still the danger here of then what happens. What happens if the United States does proportional response to that end it or does, do the Iranians then come back and say, wait a minute. We're going to take out two of your drones or now we're going to go after a man vehicle and what you said before is if we missed calculate, if they care about that missile site way more than we care about our drone. They say, well, now we have to go after the parter, exactly. So, so there could be that back and forth in what happens next. And how do you put an end to this short of the other thing to think about Brad? Here's I think we need to be careful about drawing parallels, with, with the previous Iraq war, that was a path to war, that was was constructed and was in a way contrived. This is four attacks on four different tankers within the past month, and now a US aircraft very expensive one more than one hundred twenty million dollars being shot down international airspace. So the, the, the provocations here are quite clear in there by the Iranians. And yes, there are sanctions on them, but they're the ones doing the shoe. These days and at some point, they better be careful or they're going to get a punch in the nose. The question. Now is what would that punch in the nose? Be a senior administration source tells us, there was concerned that, that strike the president ordered could have killed civilians could have escalated to fast, Trump that off of that. So what will happen today or waiting tight this morning? Steve gathered. Mary, Bruce, Martha Raddatz. Thanks for the insight. Thanks. Brad, you bet. Thanks. Brad. Next up on start. Here is be contemplate one more. An alleged war criminal watches. His comrade take the fall. Better help offers licensed professional counselors specialized in a wide array of issues, like depression, anxiety, and grief. Connect with your professional counselor in a safe, private online environment. It's a truly affordable option and listeners can get ten percent off your first month by going to better help dot com slash here. Fill out a questionnaire to help them assist your needs and get matched with a counselor. You'll love. When you're hiring, you don't wanna waste time sorting through dozens of relevant resumes. You want an efficient way to get to a shortlist of qualified candidates. That's why you need indeed dot com post a job in minutes. Set up screener questions, based on your job requirements, then zero in on qualified candidates using an intuitive online dashboard. Discover why three million businesses use indeed for hiring post a job today at indeed dot com slash start here. Search for greatness, search indeed. Over the last couple of months, there's been a big debate in this country about war crimes teach him how to be great fighters. And then when they fight sometimes they get really treated, very unfairly, when President Trump pardoned a former soldier convicted of killing a prisoner and reportedly considered issuing more all eyes turned to the trial unfolding in San Diego this week. We're a navy seal stands accused of murdering a seventeen year old, but the case against Edward Gallagher might have just been flipped upside down yesterday by one of the wilder scenes, you will ever see in a courtroom ABC's Maria via Lobos has been covering this trial in southern California. She was actually in the courtroom when this happened Maria what happened here. Okay, so this decorated navy seal is accused of a war crime killing a captured ISIS fighter back in two thousand seventeen and other navy seals are turning on him saying that, that he did it. And so what happened yesterday? Day was this navy? Seal Corey Scott who served with Gallagher on the seal team seven testified members of his own seal team turning him in. And at first you thought you know, he's, he's against him because he's saying, I saw him stab him in the neck and they're saying, what was it really the neck? Okay. Well, it was the collarbone, but I saw him stab him and he said, and I was startled, and I froze when I saw him do this. So he's telling the prosecution would they are expecting. But then he goes into this long explanation about really it was him who killed him. He says I put my hand over the breathing tube. And the ISIS fighter went into s fixation mode, and he died. So this whole trial that relies on witnesses, the key eyewitness comes in and says, if anyone killed this man, it was me. Absolutely. And when he did everybody I looked at everybody because I thought did I just hear this in my imagining this, this is a bombshell, claiming he AC? Acted to save the prisoner from being tortured by Iraqi forces. I knew he was going to die anyway. Scott said the prosecution just acts really angry and in shock. And they said you never told anyone until today and I've interviewed you several times NCIS has interviewed you several times. And at no point. Did you tell your pool tune or anyone chief Gallagher? Did not kill him. I did we just Corey Scott faced the murder charge now. No, he's not because he has immunity. Scott, who's a medic as well, and who has immunity in exchange for his testimony said that he not Gallagher kill the team by plugging. His airway the defense who is tickled says you have immunity now and is it because you don't want an innocent man to go to jail, and he said, yes. For the first time somebody went to this one of these witnesses and actually asked the real question, what is the cause of death and what we learned chief Gallagher is not guilty of murder and that offense pouncing they're outside the courthouse it because seal, creed dictates your word is your bond that witness Scott. He could be charged with perjury still but seemed to devastate the case against Gallagher, his former boss Korea via Lobos in San Diego. Thanks for bringing us the details. Thank you so much. The last several Mondays the supreme court has been trotting out the last decisions of its term, and they always leave the big ones for last. That's how they roll. But this time they'd left so many big cases on their plate that they had to add another day, now they've actually added another so yesterday on a Thursday. We heard a big decision, and we could hear several more this morning, Kate Shaw is a former supreme court clerk, she's a professor at Cardozo law. And she's an ABC news contributor. So I mean what was the biggest decision from yesterday? So there were a couple of big decisions yesterday. Brad, I'd say the biggest one involved a first amendment challenge to a forty foot cross that stands on public property in Maryland. Now, this has been there for about one hundred years, but a few years back, a group foul challenge, saying, this is a religious symbol on public property, and that violates the constitution, essentially the separation of church, and state of founders would have been appalled that the constitution was being used to try to strike down any parts of our history or heritage or monuments that had religious. Symbols are religious, imagery, and yesterday, those challenges were unsuccessful the court ruled that the cross could stand the supreme court in a seven to two decision said that this religious symbol, even though the constitution says there shouldn't be entanglement of church and state does pass mustard. A cross supporters win. How contentious was that on the court it was authored by Justice Samuel Alito, but several of the liberal, justices, actually, joined that opinion. And basically, the reasoning is yes, the cross is originally, a religious symbol. But in this case, it's not just a religious symbol, so it's been around for about one hundred years, it was erected as a tribute to soldiers from the area who died during World War One so it is essentially kind of transcended its religious origins. Like like in God. We trust them a dollar Bill or something like the court thinks it's there. Let's keep it around. I think it's right that that under certain circumstances, the prohibition on government endorsing religion isn't absolute. So if you have something that's been around for a long enough time, the court, basically, says you have something of a presumption of constitutionality so here. Christianity is not all this symbol signifies because the meaning of this is about commemorating the fallen not just about religious symbolism. That is reason enough for the court to decide not to order, the cross to be taken down. And so for those reasons, the court says, we're not gonna order this cross be taken down. And for longstanding monuments like this, even if there is some religious element were generally going to find that these are fine. But that doesn't mean that cities or states or municipalities can go about erecting new monuments and have some religious significance. And so we saw the sent there from just sorta my or and, and Ruth, Bader, Ginsburg, Ginsburg, felt strongly enough to read her dissent from the bench and people have been wondering how she's feeling since he wasn't doing so hot earlier in the week she sounded fine from what we heard so Kate. What do we then expect from something like today, are there big cases that you have your eye on? So there are sixteen cases, the court has yet to decide this term. That's a lot right now. They're just to issue opinions today and Monday, although I expect they'll add a couple more days later in the week. Oh that can do that. They can they can keep pushing this sure they can do they can keep going as long as they want at. Traditionally, they're done by the, by the first of July or a little bit before. So I'd be very surprised if they go beyond this Wednesday or Thursday. They, they are all going to be well, on their way to their European summer vacation destinations by the first week of July. I would say the biggest cases that remain really go to the core of the democratic process. So I, we have a challenge to partisan gerrymandering, that is the drawing of electoral maps that advantage or disadvantage, one political party there to cases, involving partisan gerrymandering one, a democratic challenge to a Republican map and then a Republican challenge to a democratic map the other case, probably the biggest case of the term is whether the administration is going to be allowed to add a citizenship question to the twenty two thousand census. A lot of groups have said the administration filed the law in the way it went about trying to add this question. We'll see what the justices say, if they do allow this this question to be added. Most experts predict that this would have significant consequences in terms of reducing response rates, and not in a way that sort of distributed evenly across the country would probably have disproportionate effect in high immigration communities, which tend to be in areas that skew blue. So this could have very significant electoral consequences, and most likely ones that benefit Republicans. And disadvantaged Democrats, we usually talk about supreme court cases being these long. Long things that drag this has practical implications for the census that's happening just next year. Kate Shaw breaking down for us. Thanks so much. Thank you. Brad. And one last thing, this is the time of year to go to a ballpark, right? The problem is not a lot of people are doing that in Tampa Bay, Florida. Inside the park home run for office, Garcia and a raise tickets to nothing lead here in the third Tampa Bay rays had among the weakest attendance in all of baseball for years, even when they're doing well, it's been rough and doesn't help that they play in a stadium where the ball, just hits the roof all the time, just erasing. Potential home runs. Down allied ball bits, the speaker and comes down. And it's so the rays have received approval for major league baseball not to move but to potentially become a to city team. That's right, under their proposal. They would play half their games in Florida. The other half in Montreal Canada. That sounds random. Remember Montreal used to have a team the Expos and they had a cult following. But they left to Washington because wait for it. They couldn't get enough fans in the seats. We'll now the race could for the first time in baseball history. Split the difference in cities, fifteen hundred miles apart. Now, this could be a ploy to get a nicer stadium in Florida. It could be derailed by contracts, TV deals, and there's one other problem if you do happen to be a die hard race fan, the recurrently no direct flights between Tampa and Montreal. Start here is produced by David Rhind Trevor Hastings, Josh Cohen, Tara gamble. Kelly Tarez and Lauren Ephron, thanks to eight villas Elizabeth Russo. Fitzgerald special, thanks to speak to brianna Stewart Carson, you our executive producer is Andrew Cal. I'm Brad milkey Monday. Brought to you by indeed used by over three million businesses for hiring, where business owners and HR professionals can post job openings with screener questions, then soared review and communicate with candidates from an online dashboard. Learn more at indeed dot com slash start here.

president President Trump Brad milkey Iran United States Edward Gallagher White House ABC Kate Shaw supreme court ABC Martha Raddatz Iraq Corey Scott Islamic Republic of Iran Mary Bruce Tehran baseball San Diego
Impeachment Latest: White House Continues Opening Arguments, Bolton Makes Claims In New Book

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

47:42 min | 6 months ago

Impeachment Latest: White House Continues Opening Arguments, Bolton Makes Claims In New Book

"From NPR and WBZ. You are Boston. I'm Meghna Chakrabarti and this is on point day. Three today for the president's legal team to argue. Oh you his defense against impeachment last night especially in prime time. The president's lawyers argued that whatever he did none of it was wrong. Here's Alan Dershowitz. Do Abuse of power our obstruction of Congress constitute impeachable offenses. The relevant history answers that question clearly in the negative will last week as the house. Managers laid out their case. We talked to to constitutional scholars about how they're watching the impeachment trial. What they're looking for how they're judging the arguments so today we'll do the same analysis of of the President's defense this hour point examining the public efficacy and the legal merits of the president's case? And you can join us. What stands out for you in what you're hearing hearing from the White House legal team? What do you need help understanding about what's happening in the Senate Chamber this week? We are going to hear from a couple legal scholars today. But let's begin again with Jonathan Turley. He is legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University. He testified before the House Judiciary Committee on December fourth for Republicans impeachment proceedings in the House against President. Trump professor Turley. Welcome back to on point. Thank you very much so first of all tell us. What are your first impressions of what you've heard heard from the White House or the president? I should say legal team over the weekend. And yesterday in their defense of President trump. They've done a fine nine job in in a number of respects. I thought that Alan Dershowitz did outstanding job last night. I think that the most success they've had is demolishing article two which is the obstruction of Congress article. I was highly critical of that Article in my testimony to the house. I I but I thought that the team did particularly well and showing why that article is pretty much. Dead as dillinger. I I just don't i. I'm still surprised that they went forward with it. Why okay so tell us more about why in from a legal perspective you you think that well as I said Ah when I testified in the House I oppose for articles of of impeachment clean bribery extortion? Those four ultimately were rejected by the committee and I said there were two legitimate articles. One is abuse of power one is obstruction of of Congress. But the record was incomplete that they they could not submit this record in good faith to the Senate particularly on article go to and the reason is this the shortest impeachment investigation of a president history. And what they were saying is that you have to turn over this material during during this abbreviated period. And if you don't you're going to core you're challenging are authorities itself a high crime and misdemeanor meaner and in my view that was itself quite abusive and to make matters worse. They had arguments to make. That is the White House. I think that they may to really laid out nicely. How these subpoenas were issued without the traditional vote giving the authority for the subpoenas the that's not a frivolous argument? That's a missing one of the many missing elements that existed in this. Would I refer to as a slipshod investigation. This this was not done the way earlier investigations were done in the White House had legitimate challenges to make and why would concern me most. Is that that if you start to say that. President who challenges Congress's authority and Coord- is an impeachable offense than virtually any president in our lifetime could would've been impeached. And what's important to note. Is that both Clinton and Nixon were able to go all the way to the Supreme Court to Challenge Congresses grises Or the Penta Councils right to evidence and after the Supreme Court ruled Nixon resigned and ultimately Clinton was impeached. So but isn't there a difference though between an independent counsel and Congress. I actually think whatever difference. There is works against Congress. Congress in this respect I I you know the the objections being made by the White House were not frivolous. I raised this issue back in January. Rewi the house. Judiciary didn't simply get a vote authorizing the impeachment inquiry and I encourage them to take people like John Don mcgann to court which richly alternately did and won but they never got that vote they never got the base authority that I encourage them to get and that came back to really haunt them. This was very improvisational for impeachment. It's like Nancy Pelosi going to press conference and simply announcing we're now in an impeachment inquiry is if the speaker of the House has that authority So tell me then I mean if you were We did this last week when we spoke to To couple legal scholars. There's about the house managers case. I asked them to put themselves in the shoes of the president's defense and how they would argue against what they had been hearing from the house managers. I'll I'll ask you the same thing. Now Professor Turley like if you had been Adam Schiff last week. What is the argument that you would have made that would counter balanced or counteracted? The defense you're hearing from President Trump's team this week well. I think that they did make the best argument with regards article. One disagree agree with my friend. Alan Dershowitz we always have on this issue. Not Always get. He actually changed his view from the Clinton Trial but I. I've I've disagreed with him. On the fact that impeachable offenses require crimes. I don't believe that that is true. Testified in the Clinton impeachment and the trump impeachment impeachment dealt with that theory in both of those impeachment hearings. I just don't believe it's sustainable. And I thought that Adam shifted a very good job. I think shifted well overall. He was my opposing counsel. The last impeachment. I represented the judge in last impeachment and I thought very highly of his abilities and I think that you saw that the house managers. I think the White House made mistake to craft so much of their defense around this controversy will theory of Professor Dershowitz. Well Professor Turley. Hang on here for just a moment because I'd like to bring in another voice into the conversation joining us now. Kate Shaw. She's with us from New York. She's a law professor research at Cardozo Law at Yeshiva University. She worked in the White House. Counsel's office as a special assistant to the president and associate counsel to President Barack Obama. She also clerked for justice. John Paul Stevens at the. US Supreme Court so professor. Shar welcome to you. Thanks so much for having me so you heard of a professor Shirley just said about that. He he sees. The president's legal team has having demolished that obstruction of congress charge. Do you agree agree. Disagree what do you think I do disagree you know. I think that Jonathan is right that there may have been legal arguments at the White House had to offer in the context of the house proceedings. precedings but I think that what the White House was doing in terms of the blanket resistance to the enterprise of requesting documents and requesting testimony wasn't consistent with with past practice it is true that both Nixon and Clinton resisted to some degree efforts by both independent counsels and Congress to turn over documents percents But I'm not sure we have any example in our history of a White House so thoroughly refusing to engage in the process of negotiation and accommodation. I as the trump White House did and so I think it was a defensible choice for the house to simply say we're getting nothing. So you have essentially withdrawn from the constitutional process of you know a back and forth about what kind of entitlement we have information and so rather than trying to fight you on the margins. We're going to draft an article of impeachment around this conduct now. I do think that there may have been some tactical error in not pursuing the John Bolton testimony in court and at the same time moving forward with the impeachment. But but I don't think that the conduct of the White House here is as consistent with previous presidents conduct as Jonathan suggests tells more about that though because as as Professor Turley said Ed the hurried nature. What felt like the hurried nature of the decision making in the house? He sees as part of the problem as you just said If the if the House has had waited for legal proceedings around testimony from Bolton at all would that have cleared up that issue you know so shift is always taking in a position that you know. It took the Congress and Judiciary Committee Subpoena eight months to get even a district court ruling In the Don mcgann case and and I think they looked at the pace of those proceedings and made the I think defensible judgment that they they just weren't confidence that they'd be able to get any definitive resolution. Listen you know especially from the Supreme Court rate the highest resolution of this case Fast enough to actually do the responsible thing which is not to have an impeachment right on the eve of a presidential election. I actually think it was something that involves some consideration of the national interest in having this resolved one way or another before August or September or October of an election year and then to the extent of the president's team can sing you know they're interfering with an election that those arguments have much more have to. It's actually the eve of an election so so I think that that that that was part of it now I think that it is right. That expedited resolution of particular class in the courts is a possibility. So there you know I. It's it's it's an open question whether they might have been able to really oppress hard occasionally federal courts when they're doing things resolving disputes around elections. Right where there's a deadline and they absolutely. You have to move fast. And of course you know. In the Nixon Tapes Case Litigation proceeded very quickly in the District Court they skip the intermediate appellate court and it was three weeks between the oral argument and the decision that President Nixon was was required to turn over the tapes so it can happen and so maybe it would have been wise to proceed that way but I also think it was a little bit of an assertion of congressional supremacy that these these house managers were involvement with to say you know we. We don't need to run to the Courts to vindicate our right to these kinds of materials like we ourselves as co equal as a CO equal branch of government can make these demands and those are as legally binding as a judicial ruling of course courts in our system to have the last word. But it's kind of an assertion of the primacy primacy or at least the equality of that brand that I think implicitly Congress or the House manager are making here. Yeah so professor Turley. Get your response to that because that that is at heart so one of the core constitutional questions here like who should should congress not assert its its coat equal nature to to the executive all. I am a great fan of Congress asserting its authority. I've testified a dozen times begging them to Push back on executive privilege and executive immunities. He's but in this case. I think this history will show that this was a historic blunder on the part of the House leadership. I I there is expedition that occurs with impeachment. I when when Adam Schiff said it took eight eight months to get John mcgann even without an impeachment. I I am imprimatur He was wrong That's not true. It took four months. I it is the actual issue was put in front of the court. The court fort without the expedition of an impeachment took four months and it would move much much faster but the idea of we have to get this resolved. Does Not much of an answer. If you're going to bring something something dead on arrival. And that's what they did when they handed their case over to the opposing party and the other house. Well Professor Jonathan Turley a Professor Kate. Shaw standby we are. You're bringing some analysis to the president's defense as it's being laid out this week in the Senate Chamber and we want to know what your question is. What helped you need understanding understanding? What's happening in the Senate today? This is on point. What's it take to start something from nothing? And what does it take to actually build it. I'm Geyer is every week on how I built. This speak with founders behind some of the most inspiring companies in world. NPR's how I built this. Listen now this is on point. I'm Meghna Chakrabarti Eighty. We're talking this hour about the president's defense in the impeachment trial currently going on in the United States Senate and we're we're doing an illegal analysis of the defense it's being offered By the president's lawyers it's the mirror image of what we did last week when the house managers presented their case and in order to help us. Today I'm joined joined by professor. Kate Shaw She's a law professor at Cardozo Law at Yeshiva University. She worked in the White House. Counsel's office as a special assistant to the president and associate it counsel to President Obama Professor. Jonathan Turley also joins us at as well. He is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and testified as a witness in the house impeachment proceedings against President Trump back in December. And I WANNA play for both of you a moment From the president's Vince Defense. So here is White House. Counsel Pat Simple looney talking about how he sees Democrats are arguing. The Democrats have not come close to meeting the burden burden of proof required in an impeachment case like this and he went on to say that the impeachment process itself in his view and obviously in the president's view as well was was essentially election interference and the fact that they came here for twenty four hours and hid evidence from you is further evidence that they don't really believe in the facts of their case that this is for all their talk about election interference appearance. They're here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history history. And we can't allow that to happen. White House counsel Pat Sip Baloney Kate. Shaw I have two questions about about what you just heard their first of all when when simple Oni says hid evidence from you that the house managers hid evidence from the senators. What is he referring to? You Know I. I'm not sure what Kim right before that clip. I imagined that There were few accusations that there were sort of selective excerpts from some of the witness testimony that house managers played during their three three days of argument. And so I think a few points. The president's defenders argued that the select that the that the choices made about what clips to play Concealed the context or what came before. So perhaps that's what he was suggesting there or potentially you additional details regarding you know well-founded sort of concerns about corruption and Bismah there are a few different places where I think the president's team Believed that the house managers were shading the facts expert of course in a legal proceeding or even quasi-legal preceding which is what this is each side emphasizes the facts that they believed to be favourable to their ultimate case and so so. I'm not sure that he really. We landed any punches With any of that. I mean his first Kind of the beginning of his case action the first day in the Senate simple Loney I think was criticized across the aisle for having incorrectly suggested that in the house proceedings that shifts Republican colleagues were denied access to these skiff. Right at this facility in which the initial depositions were taking place so he was obviously subject to accusations of of misleading or potentially incorrect statements himself on the Senate floor so those accusations. I think have been coming outside those little. Follow up on that then because it's not necessarily the same thing when a in the of course of a legal proceeding that council decides to focus on one set of facts versus another. That is not the same thing as In in beforehand during the impeachment inquiry of the White House to simply not allowing or not not offering or allowing people to testify. We're offering documents I mean for for for those of US outside the legal world. How are we supposed to understand these two behaviors? Well I mean. According to the to the point I was making earlier. I think that kind of the in the house. The White House's total refusal to participate in the proceedings so that the you know the defense is ends up mounted sorta such as it is by The Republicans on both the intelligence and the judiciary committee but the President's team was absent and have made repeated allegations in the Senate trial they were excluded from the process. And I think is one of the most serious mischaracterize characterizations of the record that somehow they were Prevented from any participation And you know it is true that under House Rules Sa- Agency Council was denied a presence at a particular early stage of the proceedings proceedings but the president's council was very much entitled to participate and opted not to I think because they preferred to mount their case and what they understood to be more favorable venue which is of course the Republican controlled Senate so that that I think that I think is quite unfair characterization of the house proceedings I so One more question than and professor trivial than turn back to you but the laughs that simple looney said in that In that little bite there where he asserts that the impeachment is quote unquote the most massive interference in an election. In American history and end quote doesn't get to what we were all discussing a little earlier that that both the president's defense team and the president supporter would see any the impeachment before November twenty twenty as extremely political extremely partisan and. What was the harm? What was the harm? I'm in waiting until after the election right. Well a couple of answers to that one. I think that any well okay. So most impeachments by definition if successful in the ultimate sense right if they result in removal in some way undo a democratic decision Now that's of course that's not quite true about Andrew. Johnson the first presidential impeachment because he was never elected elected president he was the vice president and then ascended to the presidency but anytime you pursue impeachment against A president if it is ultimately successful that une does a democratic process presents impeachment is a constitutional process it is pursued and then decided by constitutionally elected and democratically accountable officials both in the House and Senate and then the last thing I'll say is that if it is successful in the sense of resulting in conviction and removal from office. What what happens? The president's hand picked number two ascends to the presidency so it just feels like a real whole the simple loney rhetoric and a lot of the rhetoric from. I think the president's team team throughout have created the impression that if if sixty seven senators vote to convict president trump then Nancy Pelosi becomes the president right or Adam Schiff becomes the president. And that's not at all how it works. The president's number two the vice president of the United States Mike Pence would become the president and that is also consistent with you know the You know expressed preferences of the sixty three million Americans that the president's team continue invoke. It feels to me like it's you know it's scrambling a little bit The sort of the political meaning of this process to suggest that it is fundamentally undemocratic or election interference. Jonathan Turley. What do you think well? I don't think that the the issue was between pushing this to the Senate. I had a record pace or waiting till after the election. what I strongly and repeatedly encouraged urge the house judiciary to do is to wait a couple of months in order to get some of these witnesses get favorable court orders. All of that could have been done That's why hi this is such a baffling blunder on the part of the House. Leadership they were obsessed with Impeaching the President before Christmas which is an arbitrary decision they made in. It cost them dearly. Because the minute they voted Effectively the record was closed when they hand this case over to the other body. They're in a position. They are now of begging not just the other house but the opposing party. To complete their case It was really incredibly moronic and I couldn't believe that they were actually doing it. I mean the the idea that we really have to rush to get an incomplete and effectively dead case to the Senate Is is rather bizarre. But then they destroyed their own narrative by stopping on a dime after they did it and waiting a month and so none of this makes makes any sense at all. I don't like a lot of the rhetoric that came out of the last couple of days. I thought the first day which was the shortest was the best day For the White House you know. They knocked down a number of arguments in. I thought some of them were embarrassing for the House. Managers you know they. House managers kept on saying that the president never complained about about corruption in any other country. And that also was demolished. I mean they. They gave plenty of examples where the president has held back aid to other countries based I expressly on his concerns about corruption or sharing the cost with allies. And that's that's another sort of blunder. I think the house managers also blundered entered with some of their rhetoric. Both Schiff and Nadler Got pushback on saying that. The Republican senators were part of a cover up and suggesting they are afraid that they would have their heads. Put on pikes. Well two of the four senators that they were trying to secure for witnesses. Immediately objected acted Susan. Collins sent a note to the chief justice and he admonished both sides. I and those types of blunders. You really can't afford you. No in law school one of the things that you tell students that you can insult on occasion your opposing counsel. The defendant may even the judge but you can never insult the jury if you really want a verdict and I'm not convinced that either side is working. That hard for a bipartisan verdict. It seems to me that this is a strategy. That is not geared ear towards changing minds. So what is the strategy geared for them. It sounds like the strategy is geared for November. Twenty twenty well. Well I think it it it may be and this. I think kate and I agree. I think the election is irrelevant. There's never a good time to impeach President You know with Andrew Johnson of the vote on the articles was suspended. They voted on the first article and then they took a break. They took a break because they went to the Republican convention to pick the next candidate for president so the fact that these occurred during political periods is not particularly new. Do but I think both sides can be criticised Democratic senators talk often about the need for the Republican colleagues to show bipartisanship But they don't show much bipartisanship. I mean article too is deeply flawed. I haven't seen many a democratic senators. Say you know what I might vote against that So I think in both sides are really floating on a sea of Hypocrisy K.. Child you want to respond to that. I think that it's they're both sides. Do seem fairly dug into their partisan positions. But that's of course not new when it comes to impeachment. I mean you have had historically you've had a couple of Defections actions in favor of acquittal. But I'm not sure in either. Clinton ordered Johnson cases. You ever had members of the President's Party Voting to convict. And so this would be consistent with those. If in fact it's a party line vote on conviction I mean I think the the the key questions are into seed into the ultimate conviction question. Estrin because you know in in in in the Clinton case for example. There was a kind of bipartisan agreement. Not a kind of partisan truly bipartisan agreement around things like the the trial process Which resulted in these depositions being played as opposed to live witnesses coming in You had some defections from the President's Party in terms of voting to dismiss Smith's the articles at an early stage of the proceedings and so So actually think if what we saw in the very first day when there were votes about whether to call witnesses at the outside if we see this kind of real hardening into partisan camps around the witness votes that I think we're likely to have on Friday of this week If that happens then I think thank you really do have pretty definitive evidence that We are seeing playing in the votes in the Senate that kind of hyper polarization of the moment reflected even more than in the already quite partisan presidential impeachment of our history. Well let's just go to a caller here while we can. Let's go to Michelle. WHO's calling from lockport New York Michelle? You're on the air. Hi thanks for taking my call. I did find two arguments I listened yesterday to the President's defense team Particularly compelling and I would like so experts to comment on it if they would The founding fathers concern that impeachment would be used as a political weapon and they cited two examples bowls of kind of the similar things going on during the Obama Administration Where President Obama withheld documents and did not provide provide information and what has become known as fast and furious and the clip of Vice President Biden seemingly bragging about not providing aid to Ukraine Ukraine until they fired the prosecutor that the Obama Administration wanted fired? But we had a Democrat majority In the House I believe at that time time so there was no talk impeachment. Now we have the opposing party majority in the House so a president does seemingly the exact same thing that the prior administration administration did and everybody jumps all over it and he must be impeached so I just found those two arguments to stand out and I wondered how the experts felt about those Michelle. Turn it back to our professors here in just a second. But about the The withholding of aid to Ukraine. I mean I mean isn't the question of in whose interest right because because I think if it's done in the interest of the United States as a whole that's different thing than what what John Bolton is saying now reportedly saying in his book that he he believes. There's he has first-hand information hearing it from the president himself that he that the president wanted to withhold the aid in exchange for an investigation into Joe Biden for political purposes. Isn't that the kind of core question here. I understand that but the prosecutor ASA cuter. I believe that Vice President Biden wanted fired was going to investigate the Biden's or was currently actively investigating. He was not the the issue was not investigating them enough. That's I think what the United Concern. The United States had at the time I had heard from several sources that it was does the opposite concern that they did not want to be a part of a corruption investigation. So I just feel that we. We have two examples of something the thing that's very similar to what President trump is being impeached or has been impeached for and You know there. There was no talk of impeachment back then especially during fast and furious but again the political party that had the majority and the house was the same party as that of the presidency presidency. So my concern. Is that moving forward anytime we have opposing majority in the house and the PRI the political party to which the president belongs. There's a threat that impeachment is going to come up a perhaps the political weapon. I just wondered how the experts feel about that. We'll let me turn her to write back to them. So Michelle thank you so much for that call. I mean Jonathan Turley. This is something that the president's defense team was saying vociferiously yesterday that we you know in Ken Starr's language. We've entered the age of impeachment. Well I agree with Michelle that they landed both those punches. I the fast and furious issue. Something I dressed in my testimony in the House Judiciary You know the Obama Administration adopted as extreme position As the trump administration and by the way the trump administration's ends position on the fact that these subpoenas were invalid is identical to the position of previous administrations. They were not arguing anything That was just you know created for this administration but in fast and furious. The judge not only turned down President Obama's sweeping claim of executive authority. But she said that it was not she would not be able to maintain that argument within our very system of separation of power. She said it would defeat the very basis of our constitutional system very strong language English so this is not the first ministration to make these arguments with regard to Hunter Biden. I think they didn't land the punches. I've said For weeks that eight hundred pounds irrelevant witness. I mean he's not relevant to making the prosecution's case he's a defense witness. You know it's under the federal rules. I'm a criminal. Amel defense attorney. I would expect to get Hunter Biden because he has relevant information to the theory of the defense that if the president is maintaining as he is that he raised this issue out of concern for corruption Then the Hunter Biden contract and Hunter Biden himself is relevant and and the Democrats have to be very careful when they cross that Rubicon for witnesses they may find hundred Biden waiting on the other side. Well Kate shall give you chance to respond when we come back from a quick break. We're we're talking with to legal scholars about their view of the president's defense as it's currently being laid out in the United States Senate. We'll be right back. This is on point. They do eat. This don't eat that if you feel like it's time to finally the end your war with food this is the podcast for you food. We need to talk. Subscribe Apple podcasts. Or wherever you get your podcasts this is on point I magnin Taco Bardy. Were talking this hour with a pair of legal scholars. And they're giving us their analysis of the president's defense as it's unfolding in the United States Senate in the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump. I'm trying to buy Kate Shaw. She's a law professor at Cardozo Law at Yeshiva Sheva University. She's with us from New York. Jonathan Turley also joins us. He's a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and Keeton Jonathan last week we spoke with a pair of legal scholars when the house managers were giving their arguments and one of those one of those legal scholars Laurence tribe from Harvard University. And he he made he sort of described what the house managers were doing. Is Painting a picture. And if there were any holes in the picture in holes in their argument. It's because the White House as as we've discussed hadn't given over requested documents or allowed witnesses to testify during the house inquiry. And then Laurence tribe said Ed following the house managers arguments regarding those potential gaps. It's now up to the presence defense team and here's more of what he said the burden. Now how falls to the president's team to fill in the gaps and therefore they're the ones who ought to be asking for Bolton's and Malvinas testimony. So that was Larry tribe job last week. And of course in the interim we've had these reported revolutions from John Bolton's book about Bolton saying that the president indeed did want to withhold that four hundred million dollars from Ukraine rain in exchange for a an investigation into vice president Joe Biden and we also have reports. Now that The that Dr Don Boulton was also concerned that the president might be handing out favors for autocratic leaders according to his book so in the wake of all that. Here's Senator Mitt Romney reacting acting to this news. He told reporters that he wants to hear more from John. Bolton in the Senate impeachment trial I can't begin to tell you how John John Bolton's testimony would ultimately Play on a final decision but it's relevant and therefore I'd like to hear it and what impact that might have would be dependent upon on all the facts associated with it. We hear from obviously prosecution and defense as to what was relevant and what was said and how that might influence our final vote. But I can't begin to tell you how that would be resolved. As indicated I see myself as a senator juror in that capacity I will maintain impartiality to the ecstatic. So Kate Shaw before the break. Jonathan Turley was talking about how Democrats might want to tread lightly because if they crossed this witness Rubicon they might find nine hundred Biden on the other side. What what's your thoughts about that? Yeah I mean if I could a little bit respond to the last caller magnetic short I do think that I on the fast and furious issue. Uh Issue It's of course right that every White House has asserted prerogatives to keep some documents From disclosure whether to independent counsel or to Congress but tens of thousands documents were produced in fast and furious litigation was over a subset of documents at the White House continued to claim privilege over. And I think we'd be in a different place. If the trump White House had given some documents givens you know access to maybe some witnesses and a back and forth that ensued. So I do think that those circumstances are are different but To the second part of our question and to your question about a hundred Biden right and I mean you know I think that whether or not the White House it has successfully made the keys that there was some legitimate concern about corruption involving Hunter Biden. I mean I just it feels like there's as deep question which is you know was there. How could it ever be appropriate for the president to in secret solicit assistance of a foreign government in investigating the conduct of a US citizen right? You know we have this vast law enforcement apparatus and if there were any genuine concern about about this sort of corruption that the Justice Department in the State Department are the right institutions institutions to go to and you know in a transparent way I mean I suppose you don't need to pick a press coverage. Have you want investigation but certainly not this kind of phone call With a foreign leader so it just feels like that that is a gaping hole. Even if you do take The White House at its word that there were these genuine corruption concerns intimating the president. That just seems it's like You know serve definition an improper and potentially abusive way to proceed in the face of of even say they were genuine concerns. No Jonathan Turley the they actually. There's something that Kate has said. A couple of times in the course of this conversation that I just WanNa turn directly to you at and I'm I'm not sure I have yet so let me just do that. McCain has made the point multiple times that it's the totality of the lack of cooperation from the White House in the course of the houses investigation documents and witnesses that is is demonstrably different than impeachment moments. In of the past. The first of all do you do you think. Do you agree with that analysis and second will well if you do does not. Doesn't that in and of itself provide kind of concerning precedent for For A for a branch inch of governments complete unwillingness to cooperate at all with a CO equal branch. Well first of all I. I did not agree with the position of the White House and refusing losing to turn over any of these documents But I think it is fair to raise the White House perspective They're they're pointing out that. No no impeachment in history has proceeded without the authority to issue subpoenas that is there objection on the face of this and it is an objection that is is I think. A good faith is that the there was no underlying authority given to this committee to issue these subpoenas and the reason why it was such a blanket and broad refusal is because they were challenging that critical factor not being present and also there there. What they've said is that the house really didn't engage in much of a given take in the past you've had other administrations refuse witnesses and in documents and there's been negotiations in some cases it's been litigation most occasions there's been a resolution In this case the House refused to to respond to that in the same way that the White House has drawn a line in the sand. Ideally this could have gone to the courts but of course there's always rushed it forward and they decided to go forward on this incomplete record With regard to Hunter Biden. I would simply responded into that It's it's it's not enough to simply say this is an influential impeachment and we'll just decide all inferences against the president it might co-witnesses witnesses at the hearing admitted that this was largely influential case. Because they didn't they didn't go after these direct these witnesses with direct Evidence but you can't can't just simply say I'm just going to resolve inferences against the president. He has a defense there. Were there were stories before that call that highlighted Hunter Biden and the corruption allegations in Ukraine. That contract was ongoing in two thousand nineteen it was going on during the trump administration. In so uh-huh I've said I thought it was inappropriate for him to raise the Biden's but just as I don't believe that Alan Dershowitz is right that indictable synonymous with impeachable. I also you don't think objectionable is synonymous with impeachable. I don't think this comes close to what we're looking for for the removal of a president. Kate response to that. Well so you know I I think that. And this is maybe a segue into the kind of John Bolton question which is this infrared and circumstantial case That the house has largely built. And I think that there's plenty any of direct evidence but of course it's right that the people who are closest to the president were prevented from giving their direct accounts And so that is a gap and in the last seventy two hours hours or so. We know that there is someone who is in the finger of John Bolton WHO claimed to have this first hand information About the president explicitly linking this the military aid to investigations into the Biden's and potentially other Democrats. That's not quite explained in the New York Times reporting but there is a suggestion that maybe there were more investigations. Maybe it's just the server and the Clintons and then charisma and the Biden's but it's just not totally clear And you know one way or another. There is a fuller picture. Picture that could emerge if John Bolton permitted to tell a story in particular in the context of Senate testimony. And so you know I the question of sort of burden the clip that you. He played from professor tribe from last week. You know I'm not sure who's I you know. I don't think we're a little bit. It's all little uncharted. Who bears what burden here is it? The case is that the burden shifts to the White House to fill the gaps. I I'm not sure that's right but I also don't think it's right that the house managers have a criminal burden right. That's improved beyond a reasonable doubt standard But either way there are gaps in both accounts and it would seem like from the perspective of the public having a fuller account of what transpired in the Senate. The senators being able to make an informed judgment. Everyone should want more information to to to come forward. Let's go back to our colors. Go to Matt. WHO's calling from Framingham Massachusetts? Matt you're you're on the air. Hi thanks for taking my call My question really. Is You know the Republican argument is no do overs And in in their arguments they said that impeachment inquiry itself was a sham. And that you know. They weren't allowed to pre president wasn't allowed due process. But just you know Innov- itself it seems is that the impeachment inquiry is just the investigation into whether or not they can bring our goals of impeachment to the Senate. So how can how can these Republican lawmakers saying no do overs when part of trials to actually cross examine the witness and a lot of the president's team to cross examine the witnesses that were you know Prospects amador talked to during an investigation. So where's argument there that this is a do over somehow because they didn't subpoena people during an investigation. They gathered enough information that they felt it was feasible to spend to the Senate. Yeah well so matt. Thank you for your call and I'll turn to Jonathan Turley for a response to that. What do you think I think matt raises a good point? The the perspective of the senators is that they're creating president of another kind. You know I warned the House judiciary that this was the thinnest thinnest record of any impeachment. History I it is ridiculous. How thin this record is and and more importantly what could have been in the record You know one one of the members that does this look thin waving around a notebook. Well if you were to try to wave around the record and Clinton you'd need an eighteen wheeler I mean they need the two vans to convey just that part of the record That's the difference in how slim this record is now. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't call witnesses in fact if if you buy back I wrote a piece in the Washington Post suggesting that in my view senators have legitimate concern. That if they let this go forward and let the how and call witnesses that the house should have called as part of its investigation. It creates bad precedent. What I suggested is that what they should do? They should shoot article too as the the penalty for what the House did and House made a mistake. This is a bad way to go about impeaching a president. Then I think they should allow witnesses on Article One and in that way they convey the view of the Senate that this is not acceptable but they also accept as Matt noted that they have a separate obligation regardless of what the House did wrong. Well in the last couple of minutes that we have I mean obviously every everything that both of you said we could dig into individually per for an hour. But we've down down to five minutes and I just WANNA play a couple of moments from what we heard the president's defense team yesterday so here first of all is is a White House counsel Pat Sip Baloney sort of talking about how he might see impeachment proceedings. I I wouldn't maybe put it differently. I would maybe call it. The golden rule of impeachment for the Democrats the Golden Rule could be do unto Republican says you would have them do unto Democrats and hopefully really we will never be in another position in this country where we have another impeachment but vice versa. For that Rule White House counsel Pat Sipalawini in in two thousand and twenty wondering. If in his mind he invoked nine hundred ninety eight at all. Here's Ken Starr who back in the late. Ninety s was the independent counsel investigating President Bill Clinton. And here's what he said. Why core impeachment is hell or at least presidential impeachment? PITCHMAN is how those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment cluding members of this body. I'm full well understand that. A presidential impeachment is tantamount to domestic. Were a bit thankfully protected by our beloved first First Amendment a war of words a war of ideas but it's filled with acrimony divides the country like nothing nothing else can star in the Senate yesterday. He did give a nod their to the Clinton impeachment which he was thoroughly bound up in But Kate in Jonathan. I wanted to play those clips because I think for a lot of citizens watching this process over the past many months anyone with any kind of historical whole memory is hearing political. Echoes from the late nineties. And it's kind of driving US crazy. I mean there's no to me it it there's little doubt as to why why there's such little trust amongst the American people in political proceedings of happened in Washington so let me just start with you for the sanity. Check question here when we're talking about impeachment right now and you know quote unquote the success of impeachment. Honestly what does that really mean mean yet. Such a great question so I think there are people right now for sort of saying There's a lot of very serious evidence of presidential misconduct and yet he is. The presence is almost sure to be acquitted. And all that means is that or one of the things that means. Is that the impeachment process Is Not up to the task of this. Hyper polarized moment in which party loyalty transcends everything institutional loyalty you know to your to say Congress You know loyalty to constitutional expectations Asians or oaths or anything else So you know I guess a little bit depends on what we think. It means for impeachment to work right. Does it only work if it is possible. All under some circumstances for sixty seven senators to vote to convict and remove a president. I mean that's a very high bar to get to And in some ways as Colonie and star their arguments yesterday That is what I kept thinking. They sort of said it is. It is dangerous for impeachment to be normalized and they suggested that It's important that the Senate sent a message. That's not going to happen here. And that that will somehow head off future impeachment and it also you know. Maybe there's like a veiled suggestion imbedded in some of the comments that you know the next Democratic president is shorter. Be Impeached And maybe there will be a normalization of impeachment. Maybe it's going to be the case that in the same. Parliamentary commentary systems there. Are these routine. No confidence votes against a prime minister impeachment in the House will come to sort of routinization that I think is actually could be quite dangerous in that it means you could not it. Actually impeachment loses its meaning couldn't be deployed and effectively used to remove a president Who profoundly violates? An Oath of office in say endangers the country. Well Jonathan Turley really of got about thirty seconds left wondering if you have an answer that question too. Well I think there's a reason why the soap operas On TV are pulling twice the audience of the impeachment trial and is shocking is this may be. It's because the drama seems more real A lot of viewers view the impeachment trial is baked in on both sides. Both the senators are saying things opposed what they've said before and so they're switching over to the young and the restless Because it seems more authentic and that's an indictment of everyone then of course. There's the question in that if if not impeachment. What tools do we have in the constitution perhaps elections or the only remaining one but Jonathan Turley professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington in university? Thank you so much for joining us and Kate Shaw Law Professor at Cardozo Lot Yeshiva University. Thank you so much for being with us. Thanks for having us. I'M MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI thirty. This is on point.

president White House United States Senate Professor Turley Kate Shaw President Donald Trump President Barack Obama White House US professor Congress Professor Hunter Biden Bill Clinton vice president Professor Jonathan Turley House Judiciary Professor Dershowitz
America Goes Back to School

Start Here

24:40 min | 8 months ago

America Goes Back to School

"It's Thursday December fifth. You're not supposed to argue with the teacher. What if the presidency's on the line start here? Four law professors testify testify in front of a bunch of former law students. You think there were fireworks that does not lend credibility to your argument. It makes you look me. We will walk through the first day of the House. Judiciary Committee's impeachment in hearings. He was tasked with investigating abuse by priests will now. He's stepping down himself. The bigger question remains as Ken. This institution be trusted to police itself. Salva game with an ABC news investigation. What it means for the rest of the Catholic Church and they're marketed as the perfect wedding venues? Never mind the whole slavery thing. One plantation tation in particular advertise Eighteen hundreds parrot house. Why some of the biggest wedding websites in the game are changing their policies on plantation eddings from ABC News? This is start here. Brad Milkey are you hiring with indeed you can post a job in minutes set up screener questions then. Zero in on your short list of qualified candidates using an online dashboard get started today at indeed dot com slash. Gosh start here. That's indeed dot com slash. Start here when I say constitutional law professor. What do you think of? Because I'm thinking of words like old stayed may be dry moser like the polite versions of waste say boring but yesterday's the house. Judiciary Committee gavelled in. Its first presidential impeachment impeachment. Hearing in decades the star witnesses were none other than law experts. They were there to explain whether anything we've heard about. The president and Ukraine in the last year is impeachable. Whatever words you thought of earlier will these academics? They were GONNA fired up if we are to keep faith with our Constitution and with our republic president trump. It must be held to account. This isn't Improv improvisational jazz. Close enough is not good enough. If what we're talking about is not impeachable the nothing is impeachable and they were not the only ones remember how contentious the House Intelligence Committee was a couple of weeks ago house. Indo committee is known to be the sober serious small committee. Party leaders only select people. They think can handle classified information. The Judiciary Committee is twice as big and the members have more choice eight flare if wiretapping the political opponents and I look forward to General because maybe it's a different president worshiping beaching which is to say. I want someone who can make sense of all this. We happen to know a constitutional law scholar. ABC News Legal Analyst. Kate Shaw in the House Kate. How you yesterday was all about your people? It will block professors rare day in the Sun. And I have to say you know any any day when the country is talking about the meaning of the constitution is a good day in my book so so I thought Great. I'm glad you're with us. How did this hearing advanced things? I did it advance things you know. I do think this hearing wasn't important. Step forward in the impeachment process so most of the facts here are agreed upon. There are some gaps. There are some some disputes. But a lot of these events aren't in question so the real issue is do these events at up to impeachable conduct and and I think you saw for the first time. Professor Gerhard did President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power. We three are unanimous. Yes the three democratic witnesses all pretty categorically said that they focused on different things but they were unanimous in their conclusion that the constitutional standard was satisfied. And you mentioned that there were three witnesses called by Democrats there was another witness called by Republicans. Can you kind of breakdown. And how they differed in in in sort of cool. What case absolutely so the first witness knowing feldman kind of focused on constitutional history framers from the very outset of the constitutional convention in Seventeen Eighty? Seven made it crystal clear that the president would be subject to impeachment in order to demonstrate it that the president was subordinate to the law. He made the argument that the evidence and the testimony before the House made clear that president trump did commit impeachable double high crimes and misdemeanors specifically president. Trump has abused his office by corruptly soliciting President Vladimir Zelenskaya of Ukraine. Join nounce investigations investigations of his political rivals. Pam Carlin is a law of democracy expert when President Trump invited indeed demanded foreign involvement in our upcoming coming election. He struck at the very heart. Of what makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance. She's sort of zeroed in on the fact that all of this was about an election so she studies and writes about in litigating cases involving or democracy voting the ballot and and this sort of core of her testimony testimony was what was so wrong about this conduct was that it was about interfering with the US. Election and Michael Gerhardt. Who's also an impeachment? Expert focused focused mostly on obstruction of Congress. I know there's never been anything like the president's refusal to comply with subpoenas from this body. He's there's a lawful subpoenas. He takes the position that there's a strong case to be made that even setting aside all of the conduct visa the Ukraine the White House's refusal to cooperate prayed at all in this investigation is itself impeachable conduct and should be the subject of a separate article or articles of impeachment. My wife is mad. The kids are mad. Even my dog seems mad and Luna a golden doodle and and they don't get mad. The fourth witness law professor Jonathan Turley was called by the Republicans and he started out by saying I'm not a supporter of president trump. I voted against him. which was maybe a surprising thing for the Republican? We can witness to come out saying I'm and he. He seemed to think that the conduct at issue here coercing a foreign government to investigate a political rival. It might well be impeachable. If you prove a quid pro quo that you you might have an impeachable offense but he took the position that the facts were not strong enough. At least he's not yet to make out a case of high crimes and misdemeanors so he or you that the Democrats were moving far too quickly in these impeachment proceedings. It's a perfect storm. You you set an incredibly short period demand a huge amount of information and when the president goes to court you then impeach him they should slow down let courts hand down some decisions about witness testimony. Nixon did go to the courts and Nixon lost and then decide whether they could make a strong case for impeachment. But but that on this record the president hadn't committed high crimes and misdemeanors. When did you get a sense? I mean you do this for a living right. You know. Half these people volt between the three witnesses called by Democrats and Jonathan Turley call by the Republicans were any of the cases stronger than others. I think it's great to have nonpartisan appearing during witnesses and I think that that probably his testimony was more effective for the Republicans because he said he wasn't trump witness and yet he's still was doubtful about the strength of the the Democrats case. I mean Pam Carlin. I've seen before the Supreme Court many times I do know her and she is a ferocious supreme. Court advocate read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts. So I'm insulted by the suggestion that has a law professor. I don't care air about those facts. She had this one very high. Profile misstep during the testimony so while the president can name his son Barron. He can't make him a baron and was quickly criticized. When you invoked the president sons named here when you try to make a little joke out of referencing Barron trump that does not lend credibility to your argument? It makes you look me and then apologized in real time during the hearing for having done so. I wish the president would apologize. Obviously for the things that he's done. That's wrong but I do regret having said that. To the extent that the Judiciary Judiciary Committee wanted to start out on a serious and sombre note in which they are trying to educate both themselves in the public about what this kind of Arcane Constitutional itution language actually means. And how the facts that we've been hearing about for weeks might or might not satisfy the constitution standards and I do think it's significant that even the Republican publican witness made clear that he believes that if proven these allegations might constitute impeachable conduct yet. Two weeks of people saying you know. I can't say if this was good or bad. I just know it happened now. You've got several people saying this was bad. And in some cases it is impeachable a big moments in DC Kate Shaw guiding us through it all. Thanks so much. Thank you Brad so as this hearing was happening Republican who you have seen the most was Doug L. Collins from Georgia. This is not an impeachment. This is just a simple railroad job. Doug Collins has been a fierce defender of the president loyal soldier that the president likes him. So so much that when a Georgia senator step down there earlier this year. Donald trump all but demanded collins be the guy to take that seat in the meantime the yesterday in fact during mishearing of all moments the governor of Georgia officially selected someone else. who wasn't the pick of president trump? This created controversy in Georgia. It also speaks to some of the larger issues facing the GOP right now. Let's get out of impeachment land for a second let's talk to ABC's Kendel Carson from politics desk in DC. And so this is a red state right presidents popular there so usually really what he says goes right. What happened here? Yes so Georgia governor. Brian Kemp it is up to him to decide who actually fills the seat until next November number when the state will hold a special election to replace retiring Senator Johnny Isakson but camp actually defied president trump on this today I'm I'm proud to announce that conservative businesswoman and political outsider Kelly Leffler will be Georgia's next. US Senator went with the Kelley Leffler. She is a longtime Republican donor and a political outsider. We've seen firsthand. The impact of political outsiders like Donald Trump David purdue in Washington DC and he selected her yesterday making the announcement official despite the fact that trump has lobbied hard for Doug Collins to be the one to fill the seat. He's even over the past few weeks. Been Calling Kemp Multiple Times to make that push in Congress. I may not be the loudest voice in the room. But so you don't have to be shrill to be tough but leffler. She will be the first Republican woman to represent Georgia in the Senate and you know while she said did that yesterday that she was humbled to be chosen for the seat. She also made very clear that she will defend the president. I make no apologies for my conservative values. And I I look forward to supporting president. Trump's conservative judges. I am strongly pro-life more saying that. She's a lifelong conservative. She's pro pro second amendment and she's pro-trump so if that's the case if Leffler saying yeah I'm going to be similar very similar senator to this Guy Doug Collins. Why does this matter Matt? I mean t- to everyone else in the other forty nine states. Does this actually affect anything about the larger political landscape so this could create a potential rift between president trump trump and governor kemp. But it's also camp coming to terms with the fact that Georgia is a battleground democratic candidate for Governor Stacey. Abrams announcing announcing just minutes ago that she sees no legal root for her to win the election so she's ending her challenge to Republican. Brian Count but she with Georgia having two Senate it seats up next year And you know it becoming an even bigger battleground at the presidential level you know this is really Republicans saying that we. We need someone who can actually win back voters that we are losing think that we need to have Stronger voices that are there for all Arkansas' those are specifically those female suburban voters nationwide polls show college educated women who live in the suburbs like this one are trending against it's Republicans but that they are hoping Kelly Leffler will start bringing back to the Republican base. So this is a play than the this is. Hey we see you suburban female voter and and we know that it's becoming less and less likely you're gonNA vote Republican. We see you and we want your vote. Yes exactly I mean this is Kemp strategy but this is also something that Republicans Publican's across. The country are hoping to prioritize next year as they WANNA put forward more diverse candidates candidates that are actually reflective of the American electorate electorate. Like you said now too big Senate seats up for grabs in Georgia was increasingly becoming a purple state and people like Michael Bloomberg in the presidential race. Leffler you're very capable of sustaining her own campaign very very wealthy Republican Donor Kendel Carson. Thanks so much thanks Brad. The next start here. He said he wasn't going anywhere. We'll after a meeting with the Vatican he's out cybercriminals love cyber. Monday wants some tips to make online shopping. Safer make sure you use device security security on your computers and devices search for deals untrusted retail sites rather than search engines and always use unique passwords and log on information every time you eubank shop or browse online you can be vulnerable to cybercriminals lifelock in Norden Pioneers and Consumer Cybersecurity have joined forces to help. Protect your cyber safety. A an ordinary sixty with lifelock membership provides all in one protection with device security identity theft protection and a VPN for online privacy. No one can prevent all cybercrime crime and identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses but Norton. Three sixty with lifelock is a powerful ally for your cyber safety until December eight sign up and get a special podcast offer. Save up to forty percents off your first year by going to NORTON DOT COM SLASH ABC. That's Norton Dot com slash. ABC for forty percent off. While back I told you about an investigation from ABC news into a Catholic diocese in Buffalo. New York began when a secretary leaked internal church documents from the Bishop's Office to ABC's local affiliate W. W it ramped ramped up when ABC's David Wright spoke exclusively to Bishop Richard Malone where he defended how he handled a church abuse scandal. Was this a cover no it. It wasn't a cover up was not. I don't believe it was damage control. I know that's been set off and breaking news just in toward news from this morning from Rome Bishop Malone is officially resigning Vatican yesterday along with the bishops career and this is the most explosive development in the Catholic sex abuse crisis in Buffalo. This followed a report report from the Vatican itself but there are still a lot of questions left to be answered here so we got David Wright himself with us in studio so David catch me up. How did we get to this point? Well Bishop Malone is out following as you say. A Vatican review of the dice is this is an investigation of sorts ordered by the pope himself sending the bishop of Brooklyn into Buffalo to talk more than eight hundred folks that are connected with this story to shepherd does not desert the flock and a difficult time Bishop Malone for more than a year now has been steadfast in the face of mounting criticism over his handling of past allegations of sexual abuse by priests saying that he wouldn't resign statement. It is my honest assessment that I have accomplished as much as I am able to. And that there remain divisions in wounds that I am unable to bind and he'll now suddenly a change of heart. Well and could you go back to the foundation of the scandal because it really had to do with the diocese admitting yes there was abuse here. Yes we're taking a look at it and then all all these other people saying well. You didn't take a look at the abuse. I've alleged the worldwide Catholic Church now is in the midst of reckoning over how it handled past allegations allegations of sexual abuse. These are Abuse allegations going back decades in some cases and Bishop Malone initiated such a review back in March. Yeah I think of two thousand eighteen and he came out with a list of forty two names of buffalo priests who he said had credibly been accused of sexual misconduct. I was forty Chennai Florida yet. We've added to that. Yeah that was the group at that time that my staff here who work on those things knew for sure. We're corroborated since learned that as many as one hundred maybe even more. We're left off well and that that was a that was a decision at the time and this is something by the way we continue to Evaluate over and over again it turns out that the real list is more than one hundred names long on a lot of names left off the list for various reasons as Wright right person in the right place at the right time and God gave me the strength to do the right thing then. It only really came to light because the bishop's own private secretary criterion Started xeroxing documents quietly. She quit her job saying she'd become morally allergic to it. Because of the lack of transparency the lack of accountability the attempt to cover up as she saw it. The pressure on Bishop loan reached a critical point this September. When a second whistle blower Father Rashard beer not came forward providing fighting? The I team with secret audio recordings were Malone attempted to conceal sexual misconduct allegations involving other Jeffrey. No Ach who denied the allegations and crisis versus old. We've heard case after her case of victims survivors in Buffalo Who say the Church didn't do right by them for him? This ain't now today. Hey that they're doing. The right thing is a slap in Oliver faces. Because you haven't done the right thing we you study the trick David for so many years. The criticism of the Vatican was they hung out America to drive. They said this is an American problem. We're not getting involved then. Oh it's an Irish. An American can problem Malone himself says this is a larger issue is the Vatican Akseli getting. Its hands dirty here. What are they doing? What do they do next well? I mean Bishops ouster follows this Vatican review of how he handled things then implicitly. There's a suggestion there that they're not happy with the way he handled it. And they feel a need to move on to turn the page here But the bigger question remains is Ken. This institution be trusted to police itself. Self is a place for ranger particularly can be turned into a passion for reform for good. There are questions about the procedures the review board that the the diocese has in place to vet claims of abuse at the law firm whether that law firm is basically interested in protecting the church from from liability or in protecting children from harm by by abusive priests would you release the secret files of at least the acknowledged knowledged pedophile possibly can do to help victims in order to have the information they need. I will do almost ninety percent of the Catholics clicks in buffalo pulled by the Buffalo News. said that they thought that Bishop Malone should go. Finally they've taken that step now. The question is what this interim apostolic visitor not the successor but the the new man in charge. Bishop Sharpen Burger does in terms of how how he addresses these concerns in that report not public yet is really explosive investigation from ABC News. And it's affiliates David Wright. Thanks for being here. Thanks Bro the last thing weddings in this day and age are basically made for instagram. We know this and the biggest part of that is the venue right rustic bucolic pastoral. Pick your pinterest adjective. People want a spot. That looks really pretty. We'll yesterday pinterest and the popular wedding website website. The not both announced a plan to stop promoting plantation weddings as getting married on a plantation. So we've seen in an uptick in this instagram wedding aesthetic which unfortunately capitalizes on slavery. At is jade magnus knock who works at the Civil Rights Advocacy group color for change change for a while. Now they've been leading the charge and what they think is really disturbing online marketing for historic plantations. So some of it might be a this. Plantation is a historic site with a traditional charm and romance of its rich pass. Hi everyone I'm Heather Higgins. Northville plantation were elegant events began please commends. So I can show you around. You know an enchanting place That is a historic plantation. The point tation and is best known today as a of wedding and family reunion venue. They might note. Certain buildings were built in the sixteen hundreds or seventeen hundreds by large land owning families without thou also naming that these families also owned human beings. Don't pay attention a building over there. which clearly used to house a lot of enslaved people right absolutely really and we even saw that one plantation in particular advertise Eighteen hundreds carriage house. You have to get married here or this beautiful barn behind me an obvious. So obviously we know that means a historic barns. We know that these are spaces. That are being romanticized. She says some of this goes beyond just. Is the architecture such as people ignoring history in favor of pretty columns. She says a lot of people actually seek these venues out because of the history just a whitewash history and when we went into investigation really gathered the data that these plantations where marketing an antebellum time period a time period where black people were slaves. You we know there is no historic mansion on acres of of of Green Lan without enslaved black people working in these fields. You know so there particularly hearkening back to a very very specific time yesterday pinterest and the not announced they are changing their policies and they partnered with color of change to do it but I ask them. What do you actually change online? So like the non wedding wire our wedding wedding site aggregate there's so we went to them We had a couple of asks. One of them was to no longer accept ad revenue from plantations. We ask them to scrub their website. If any editorial content sat that featured plantations and use very romantic language to describe them Mike Historic or idyllic or the word Antebellum antebellum as a marketing tool as no more realistic goals about the most photogenic outdoor weddings that treat plantation fields like another cue yard for Pinterest. She says it's a bit different. We we particularly ask them to ban search term plantation weddings and to stop accepting ad revenue. That is a search turn. People use the search term plantation weddings. Absolutely absolutely and there there were tons of You know boards that featured you now this particular aesthetic and so this is working on removing plantation weddings. They've committed to removing the search term and there was some pushback from some corners of the Internet on this people saying these places really have made strides in recognizing history through their tours and the rush to sensitivity here over Zoltin beautiful venues being condemned. I want to ask. KGANAKA's straight up. Do you think weddings should even be performed here. She said rather they didn't you want to. She said it's a free country. But when you're standing on historic property never forget who actually built. It was first reported by Buzzfeed. We reached out to Pinterest and the not ourselves. They both said they're thankful to color of change for pressing this issue and they're looking forward to the changes. Start here tomorrow. Hit US up with a five five star rating and review. If you haven't already really helps us out more. ABC News Dot com where the ABC News App. Brad Mielke seat among them Are you hiring with indeed. You can post a job in minutes. Set up screener questions questions then. Zero in on your shortlist of qualified candidates using an online dashboard get started today at indeed dot com slash. Start here that's indeed dot com slash start here.

president President Trump ABC News US Judiciary Committee professor Bishop Richard Malone Georgia Catholic Church Kate Shaw Doug L. Collins Congress Jonathan Turley ABC lifelock Kelley Leffler Pam Carlin Ken
#181 - Has The Electoral College Outlived Its Usefulness?

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

52:06 min | 2 months ago

#181 - Has The Electoral College Outlived Its Usefulness?

"This is from the team at intelligence squared. We WanNa Think Express VPN for supporting this episode. You probably don't think much about Internet privacy on your own Home Network Express. Vpn Will Secure Privacy and protect your information visit expressed VPN dot com slash debate. And you can get an extra three months free on a one year package now. Let's get to the episode. Everybody I'm John Dan host and moderator of intelligence squared. Us debates for this episode. I got online with four debaters. Who argued over this resolution? The Electoral College has outlived. Its usefulness. This was a debate that we had originally planned to host with our partners at northwestern law school in Chicago. We were GONNA do it at the law school. Obviously that did not happen. What did happen was that we had instead of a great debate. Digitally has turned out to be incredibly timely topic. So let's get to it the Electoral College. It's this unique construct of indirect democracy that well. It's it's not a college as the term is commonly used but it sure is electoral in that its members who are currently maxed out at five hundred thirty eight have been the actual electors of every president we've ever had since we've had a constitution even those five times in our history when the popular vote went to someone else in recent memory that happened in the two thousand election happened in the two thousand sixteen election. So what were the founders thinking? That's a question that right now. The Supreme Court is considering in an electoral college case but why did the founders think? The Electoral College was needed. And what good has come of it and also what harm has come of it. Well in these questions we've been thinking. They're the makings of a debate. So we had it for really really good debaters said yes or no to this statement. The Electoral College has outlived. Its usefulness as always Our debate goes three rounds and our audience tuning it online voted to decide our winner. But you can still weigh in on this when yourself if you're just listening for the first time to this debate we are taking votes right now at Iq to us dot org that's q the number two US dot org. If you go there you can cast your first vote before you hear the arguments you can vote for or against or undecided on the resolution. You know what? I'll give you a test to do that right now. I'll wait for you. Remember you cast votes one now in one after you've heard the argument and it's the team that changes the most mind. Who will be our winner? So go do that. I'll wait for you. So let's meet our debaters. I up to speak for the resolution. The Electoral College has outlived. Its usefulness. Jim Bowie Jim. Thanks for joining us. Thank you for having me Djamil. You are in New York Times columnist and political analyst for CBS News. You are also an alumnus of our series. So it's great to have you back also arguing on your team for the resolution. I want to say hello to kate. Shaw Kate. Welcome to intelligence squared. He John Thanks so much for having me. And you're a professor at the Cardozo School of law and Co Director of the floor Shurmur Center for Constitutional Democracy. You're also a host of the very popular law. Podcast strict scrutiny. So that's the team arguing for the resolution. The Electoral College has outlived. Its usefulness. Now let's meet the team arguing against that very low resolution. I let's say hello to Tara Tara. Welcome to intelligence squared. It's great to have you with us on one folks to know that you are the author of a lot of books about the electoral college including why we need the Electoral College. You're also a former lawyer and editor of the Texas Review of law and politics and your partner. I WANNA welcome also to intelligence squared Bradley Smith. Bradley Hi Welcome to intelligence squared tie. Thanks John Pleasure to be here and you are a professor at Capital University Law School and you have served as Commissioner Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission welcome. I want everybody to know that was always our debate will go in three rounds and then you those folks out in the world are online audience. Get to vote to decide who the winner is all right. I think we are ready to move. Onto round one opening statements from each debater and turn those statements will be formed. It's each our resolution is the electoral college has outlived its usefulness. And here I up to speak for that Resolution Jamal Buoy columnist for the New York Times. Djamil your time starts right now. I'm going to begin with a discussion of how we got to the Electoral College in the first place and the think he thing I want everyone to understand. Is that the electoral college that we have the one we will use. November's election is that not actually the one that was ratified in seventeen. Eighty eight gone. Electoral College fell out of use quickly. What we have is essentially an extra constitutional mechanism to deal with the exegesis of politics as they've developed from the beginning of the constitutional convention and specifically when they began thinking about the national executive the delegates for trying to balance four simply four competing things from came to Hal. Choose and national executive They wanted a voice for the People. They wanted a fair representation for slave states They wanted independence from the legislature in. May had to deal the very simple question of. How do you actually choose national executive? In a big large diverse country they cycled through a few things Several delegates including teams Madison Propose Popular Election Others propose choosing from Congress But by the time They came to a conclusion which was at the very last minute the convention. They decided they would do this. Elector based system that each state would choose. Electors would gather together as a kind of congress of it's filtered through candidates They would the majority whoever won the majority of electors would become president Sprout Vice President and if there was no winner at to the house would choose on the basis of the delegations. No one was really entirely satisfied with this when they came to the conclusion but everyone expected more or less at the president of the Convention George Washington would become the first chief executive and this was a a straightforward way to get George Washington took become President United States. No one was really too worried about it. There is debate over During the revocation debates. But it wasn't a big sticking point. No one was too worried about mob rule in these discussions. They weren't worried about excessive democracy. Usually when the founders talked about democracy they were talking but a Fenian style. Direct ASSEMBLY IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE ELECTIONS. So it works in seventeen eighty nine and seventeen ninety two and then to choose. Washington. Then it probably falls apart sums. Ninety six is highly contested. Eighteen hundred is famously. Contested because Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson and get the same number of electoral votes and This ends up. Nearly tearing the country apart in the twelfth amendment is passed to ensure that electors can choose the president and the vice president on separate ballots and to avoid repeats of eighteen hundreds. But by this point this is key by eighteen. Hundred the idea of a non partial body of people selecting president is gone. We have partisanship. We have political parties. Partisan letters. Give THE EXPECTATION VEHICLE. Choose on a partisan basis and so at that point. The Electoral College as designed has basically elevated usefulness. It's gone within fifteen years. In what emerges the winner take all system It's highly partisan Electoral choices is basically an attempt to get around the conditions of American politics at the time. surviving founders. I limit this and even Madison calls for a constitutional amendment to get rid of winner. Take all of the very least. And by the closure the nineteenth century electoral college misfires or misfires of this new strain system. We've devised and there is an emerging consensus that we should do something different. My debate partner will talk about The Electoral College is developing the twentieth century. And the problems associated with it. Thank you thank you Jim Bowie. And now we moved the argument over to the other side arguing against the resolution that the electoral college has outlived. Its usefulness I want to once again. Welcome Tara Ross. She is author of why we need the Electoral College Tara. The screen is yours. So I'm going to start with the story to my surprise everybody in the late. Nineteen Sixty S and early nineteen seventies. Civil Rights leaders came out enthusiastically in favour of the Electoral College. Now this was no token gesture of support. They wrote editorials. They testified before Congress in general seem terrified that if the electoral college where to go away racial minorities would be hard. In fact National Urban League President Vernon Jordan defended the electoral college saying Takeaway Electoral College in the importance of that luck vote melts away lacks instead of being crucial victory. Major stays simply become ten percent of the total electric with reduced impact so he and other civil rights leaders noted benefits. That go unappreciated day. I he noted that third parties cannot into big of a foothold in with the Talk Hodge. Now maybe you're not about that because we all sometimes get frustrated with our teach races but the good side is that extremists cannot have too much of an influence on our election. In particular. The civil rights leaders noted that segregationist George Wallace in nineteen sixty eight was unable to get foothold. They noted other benefits as well. They noted that the concentration of minority voters is certain. Large urban areas can be an advantage. Jordan call this. The empathy factor. Those who live in the same city tend to have shared concerns so the result tends to be coalition building within cities across racial and other lines. That might normally divide us. Those coalitions can swing a large metro area. Invest the state but the beauty of the electoral college is that it balances us in so many ways so while urban areas may have a disproportionate power and sell parts of the country in another person's the country. We're all in all states can make a big difference in this is because of how electors allocated partly based on population and partly based on one state. One vote so we have a bats. The result of this historically speaking his been that we have encouraged presidential candidates to build coalitions. You can't win if are catering to one region or one tiger voter one special interest group. Those who do the best. In the Electoral College has done the best job. Coalition knowing historically those who do a terrible job tend to fail. So you're on. The virtual audience is looking at me and saying here and that's ridiculous. Look how divided an angry we are. We are in a bad place. Both parties are broken. Nobody's doing a great job of coalition building. And it's not pretty but the good news is we have been here before we were here in years after the civil war stark division between North and South Lots of anger in division in upset the Electoral College helped us. Then the reason it helped us because it was unproductive to stay in that place Democrats could not win with only there safe areas that it they simply did not have enough say various by contrast Republicans could win only safe areas. The just barely if they lost even one part of the country or one stay then they would lose the presidency to the Democrats so over time. The incentives were reach out people but weren't to learn about people in the middle and to build coalitions and in fact by the Nineteen Thirties the Democrats with in repeated landslides as we know so ambitious. Encourage everybody to remember the electoral House today when we are most angry innermost divided. It's actually when we need the electoral college votes because it reminds us to come together as Americans into reach a hand across the to those who are entirely like us so I would urge everyone to the against the motion. The Electoral College still serves us today. Taros former lawyer and editor of the Texas Review of law and politics. Thank you very much. Tara. I'm John. This is intelligence squared. Us We'll have more opening statements on the resolution. The Electoral College outlived its usefulness when we return being stuck at home these days. You probably don't think much about Internet privacy on your home network even an incognito mode your online activity can still be traced which is why even when at home. I never go online without using express. Vpn EXPRESS VPN and crips one hundred percent of your data with best in class encryption. So your information is always protected. And that's on every single device simply tap one button in your protected express. Vpn Is the fastest most trusted VPN on the market. It's rated number one by it wired the verge and a whole bunch more and honestly the setup cannot be simpler takes a few clicks. And then you're ready to browse securely so protect your online activity today with a VPN. I Trust Secure my privacy visit express. Vpn DOT com slash debate? And you can get an extra three months free on one year package. That's E. X. P. R. E. S. S. VPN dot com slash express VPN dot com slash debate to learn more. We are in the middle of round one of this intelligence squared. Us debate our resolution is the electoral college has left its usefulness. Now let's hear from Kate. Shaw law professor and Co host of the podcast strict scrutiny. She's arguing in favor of the resolution. So I think you. Mel has very successfully demonstrated that the best reading of the drafting history of the Constitution. Is that the electoral. College is essentially an eleventh hour and imperfect solution to one of the most vexing problems that face the delegates at the constitutional convention which was how to pick the president. And I think that that history is an important corrective to the suggestion that is often made that reforming or abolishing the electoral college would be inconsistent with the framers design or the framers desires on a number of occasions. This peculiar process set forth in the Constitution has either failed to produce a result or has awarded the presidency to someone other than the person who amassed the most votes in the country. That's true about eighteen hundred eighteen twenty four eighteen seventy six eight hundred eighty eight all our failures of different sorts. But let me fast forward a little bit to marine examples with which people might be familiar two thousand and two thousand sixteen so in the year two thousand of course. George W Bush wins. The presidency narrowly with two hundred and seventy one electoral votes to Al. Gore's two hundred sixty six over losing the popular vote by about half a million of course in two thousand sixteen sixteen years later. Donald Trump wins decisive electoral college. Victory Over Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote by nearly three million in standing alone. No single incident is a complete indictment of the electoral college but this is an exceptionally high rate of error and rate of malfunction for something as consequential as the selection of the US president. And I think that is especially true because we now have some political scientists predicting that we are at an increased likelihood of recurrence of this kind of divergence between the popular vote on the one hand and the electoral college outcome on the other. So let me turn briefly to current practice so the constitution gives each state the power to choose electors in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct in the early days actually state legislature themselves sometimes picked electors and various other experiments were undertaken but relatively quickly every state allowed it's voters to choose its electors and since about the mid nineteenth century. Mo- states have awarded all of their electoral votes to the winner of estates popular vote today forty-eight states us what's known as the winner take all scheme with Maine and Nebraska differing slightly and so these developments people picking their electors and then the electors casting. Their votes to align with the votes of the states of voters have occurred as we have marched in other ways toward a more inclusive democracy with a fifteenth and the nineteenth amendments and the direct election of United States senators but the electoral college system as it has developed which of course diverges quite significantly from the originally designed scheme has also had some deeply troubling consequences and in particular the winner. Take all character of this scheme means today. Only a handful of states matter in selecting the president and those are states with closely divided electorate so called Purple States so very blue states like New York or California very red states like Alabama Mississippi are utterly irrelevant and thus erased from the single most important election in the country. Instead handful of states maybe up to a dozen are the ones that the president the states are random in a sense that they just happened to have very closely divided electorates but they also share certain features and those features distort our politics. Their populations are older and more rural and on average whiter than the country. As a whole Larry less gives as an example the prevalence of debates about coal in the presidential election cycle where seven or eight times as many Americans have jobs in the solar sector and yet solar never comes up in presidential elections so the idea that the framers intended a system in which the presence would be decided by this pretty arbitrary subset of the states with no role for other states for their voters is pretty hard to defend the scheme. Exacerbates polarization and divisions creates distorted sense of the country and it's political geography. Were not divided into red and blue. In fact everyone everywhere. Thank you very much. Kate Shaw and our final opening statement comes from Bradley Smith. Bradley Smith is law professor and former chairman of the here in the United States majority rules. Clearly a very important value. But it's not our only political value. Our Constitution and institutions contain numerous anti majoritarian features. That are aimed at protecting and enhancing other values. The bill of rights most obviously simply takes a lot of items off the table. No matter how much you bothered by fake news you can't censor the press. We have separation of powers enumerated powers bicameralism judicial review and numerous other checks and balances. Many people forget that it's possible to win a majority of the US Senate without winning a majority of the votes cast for senators possible to win a majority of the US House into the speaker. The second most powerful official in the country without winning a total vote for the House of Representatives may people are also in the mistaken belief that the United States is somehow unique in this respect. And we're the only country where you can lose the popular vote and still be elected chief executive. That's not true in countries that use proportional representation. This happens when no candidate gains majority and then afterwards the various parties get together and they negotiated coalition and sometimes it's the winner of the popular vote. Sometimes it's not who heads up that coalition and this is happening in recent decades our recent elections in Sweden Norway Germany Israel Italy and other democracies in other countries such as the United States chief executives can be elected outright without wearing the popular vote. This happened in Japan in two thousand three since World War Two. It's happened twice in Great Britain. It's happened twice in New Zealand and it's also happened at least twice not only in the United States but in the other three democracies Great Geographic Democracies Hispanic continent or subcontinent. That is India. Australia and Canada have all these countries got it wrong. I mean our system is different but the principle is the same. So arcadia Jamal ready to condemn all of these other democracies for just getting it rock now saying that the electoral college occasionally gives us a president. Who did not win? The most popular votes is merely a statement of fact. It's not an argument and cost such results. Misfires is to fail to understand why we have electoral college. The question is why do most democracies especially those spanning continent WanNA system that about once in every twelve elections and that's what it's been in the United States results in someone. Winning the chief executives office without winning the popular vote then suggest that our electoral college recognizes in a vast incredibly diverse country. Such as ours. It matters how electoral majorities are created. You don't have to win the popular vote to win the Electoral College. But you have to win a lot of votes and you have to a lot of states to and that necessarily means that the winning candidate will have appeal that extends beyond any or two regions or broad social classes. Sometimes people complain about this focus on swing states. But there's two points here first. Those other states aren't relevant. Try winning the tra- college if you're a Democrat without Owning California. It's very very relevant. Secondly the voters tend to agree secondly those states have tremendous diversity. The seventeen states in the last election. That were that were swung with less than five point. Swing right there have gone to the other candidate. Those include three of the five states with the highest white percentage voters but also four or five of the highest percentage of Hispanic voters three of the eight with the highest percentage of black voters. They include states from every geographic region in the country. They include a states. That are highly unionized. States are lightly unionize high tax states low tax states big states small states in this way the electoral college fosters governing majorities that are generally more stable over time and this creates more freedom and more prosperity. Now they're practical advantages to the electoral college and I hope will be able to explore those in the rest of our time. It curbs fraud. It allows for local election rules tailored to local conditions. It allows for experimentation with voting procedures like voting by mail and it avoids the Catastrophic Possibility of national recount. Let's be careful that we don't throw something away unless we understand why we have it. Thank you all right. Thank you Bradley. Smith and that concludes our first round of this intelligence squared. Us debate our formal opening statements. And now we move onto our second round in our second round is much more of a free willing conversation in which the debaters can address one another directly and challenge each other and also take questions from me and from you members of our audience on the resolution. The Electoral College has outlived its usefulness. We heard Jamal Buoy and Kate Shaw. They went back to the beginning which is relevant because we're talking about outlived its usefulness to to look at what its original purpose was and what they point out is that the electoral college was designed by the founding fathers as a kind of cobbled together concept to solve a thorny problem of how to elect the president and it was designed for a very specific time of the sperry specific place in a very specific almost politics free era which was soon set aside the point out that within twelve years the founding fathers or rather their successors began to tinker with the concept so pointing out. That it's not sacrosanct. Set in stone. It was never anybody's ideal way to elect the president and they also say that it has a high rate of malfunction their opponents Brad Smith and Tara rose number one they take a very interesting philosophical position that the idea that the popularly of chosen candidate would not be. President is not in itself necessarily as terrible as as wrong as it might sound that we do that with a lot of other elections. A lot of other countries do that. They further point out that there are practical advantages to having an electoral college that it can be a bulwark against voter fraud etc. And they talk also about its benefits in situations. They site specifically during the civil rights era in which Civil rights activists felt that the presence of the Electoral College kept out extremist parties that would have been damaging to their interest and they say that in a very important way. The Electoral College serves to keep relevant parts of the population. That would be electorally irrelevant if the college We're not there. I want to dig into some of this but I really want to start with Bradley. You made the statement that this notion that the candidate that of the population chooses in an election. At least a plurality if not a majority not becoming the president which seems to be the thing that most people I think at a sort of visceral level would find questionable or objectionable is really not that problematic and I want to take that to Jamal Buoy. I Jimmy Taylor that point. It's an interesting point. I think the problem with is that Bradley's examples are fundamentally different than the kind of presidential governments. We have here that in these coalition governments you can think of executive power is not necessarily being winner. Take all means. If there's there's an extent to which that executive power is shared in a system where executive power self is not winner. Take all in that kind of system a party that does not win a plurality the vote informs a Co op majority of the vote with informs a coalition with other parties to form majority. That's this is a completely different kind of scenario. Then we're talking about in the United States. Executive power is singular where it's not tied to the legislature where it is essentially winner. Take all that. There's only one president and one party can occupy the presidency in practical terms and that kind of situation. It does becalm through democratically. Problematic for the winner to not have received a majority of the vote and polarization is really important here. You can imagine a situation which American politics are far. Less polarized and the popular vote loser electro winter then forms a kind of coalition government upon taking office. This is basically what happens with the Lincoln Administration right because we polarization because the person wants the presidency tends to govern for the sake of particular person ideological agenda it makes it even more important than a majority of the public has some has ascended to that agenda. Let me I was going to go to Bradley but I want to actually Bradley if you can a seed the moment to Tara because also turned the point into something the tower was talking about. Which was this whole issue of coalition building? So Tara How do you? How do you respond to Jamal's argument? Well we're just disagreeing on how well see this play out the way I see it. It's the reason that they do. Those things in those other countries is because they're looking for a way to ensure that a variety of voices is reflected in process and the art selecting one percents. I guess not a Prime Minister or we've had these. I guess I'm not understanding that Argument that look. The point is not Y- Americans unique. Were not just like any those countries in appropriate trying to be but the point is just to bring in a variety of voices. This is the one person who is expected to represent. All of us in America is a unique huge diverse country. The founders thought thirteen states with to diverse. Too Big for us to to possibly be self-governing is how they've seen it. They thought it would be dangerous. And of course they solve their problem by creating some of these checks and balances in our system including the Electoral College. But we need something special because if we have something special. What's GONNA end up happening is you're going to have a president who represents the protests grouper program room for the whatever it would you would just have nothing that would force people to come together in into to think about their fellow? Americans and what you have in common instead of what you have this different so Bradley. Djamil made the point in his opening statement that the thing was designed for a specific time and place in a very specific political situation or politics free situation and then it changed and basically saying thing that was designed for a situation two hundred thirty years ago. Has It's very very reasonable that its usefulness would be outdated and I WANNA ask you counterfactual question if there hadn't been an electoral college but we had the opportunity to create one now. Would we want to have an electoral college? I don't know right. We'd go into debate and I don't know but I think I can tell you this right. I. I WANNA point out responding to Jamal. He makes he addressed only kind of a minor part of my point which was countries that use proportional representation whereby way oftentimes the head of the government that leaves that coalition that forms after the election is not the party that got the most votes part second or third most votes but he ignores the part. That's most relevant which countries such as the United Kingdom New Zealand India Canada Australia. All of which use systems that do not rely on proportional representation and consistent coalition building created after the election results in each of those cases though you can win a majority and you could win the prime ministership or whatever. The office is called without having One a pure majority or even a plurality of the popular vote but what you have to win in all of those countries is a lot of votes and you have to in especially in a large country like the United States India Canada Australia geographically diverse countries. You have to win. Votes across a broad spectrum of interest you know. The United States is very very different. Montana is very different from New York City or New Jersey and you have to put together a coalition that can carry that full regime now if we go back to the original use of the Electoral College. All point out that many things we find over time have you. That are different than what we might have might have originally designed them to be. It may be that you know. Things are not the same as they were in eighteen hundred. It should be noted that the electoral college is not the same as the one that was created in seventeen. Eighty eight has been changed but I think has served us very very well. We're very stable country. And it's hard to find many countries that have as good a record of electing chief executives as we have in the United States. So let me bring in Kate. Shaw and Kate. You were the person who cited the put out the language there that the electoral college has this high rate of malfunction and your opponents dismissed the notion that there have been meaningful malfunctions so dig into that point. I'd like to hear more about what you mean by a malfunction what constitutes the system not working and. I think it ties back actually John into your first question. Which is there is this basic kind of political and moral intuition that the person who wins the most votes in an election ought to be victor in that election and I think the by the time the Electoral College get sort of realigned in first net. No three through the twelfth amendment but then over the decades of the nineteenth century in which states are basically assigning their lectures to simply follow the will of the voters of those states that he is the logic that is animating those developments though it is filtered through this prism of federalism because it is the majority of voters in the states as opposed the majority of the voters in the country that the electors to follow but Brad said in response to that he mentioned some of these comparative questions of how other countries do or don't implement this intuition that the person who gets the most votes ought to win but it is and he cited to come back to the domestic context added a couple of examples of US examples that are inconsistent with that general principle. And I think the two of course are the Senate which of course in terms of sort of your national vote share right of course could get the most votes in the country right in support of your political party and yet not control of the United States Senate right the Senate does not hugh to the basic logic of one person one vote right sort of basic political equality and majority rule and then the fact because of Gerrymandering I gather as what was referencing. That is actually true. In the house it is possible to get more votes nationwide and yet not to have your party control the outcome in the house and I guess I would just say that that those examples I the Senate is a historical anomaly in exactly the way that the electoral college is historical anomaly and it is inconsistent with contemporary values particularly political quality. And that's just not the values that I hold but ones that the supreme court in one person one vote cases has said are essential to our democracy and that we're there are exceptions or deviations from that principle there are specific articulate. Susan's for that and I'm just not sure any of the reasons given in defense. The electoral colleges deviation from that principle or at all persuasive. We'll be taking questions from the audience when we come back. I'm John Donavan and this is intelligence squared. Us We're in the middle of round two of this intelligence squared US debate. Now what's your question from the audience? I my name is Emily Stewart. I'm a reporter at box. So one thing that happens to me. Sometimes I write about the electoral college is that I get is writing the NCAA. Haley Gaulish it. Then what will happen? Is that only cities in blue states will get to decide elections. My question is how do you respond to those people that live in Nebraska Scott's interstates with less that would have less of a say? Thanks Emily very much for your question and I want to take that to kate. What's your response to that? Yeah I mean. I've heard that argument as well as a matter of numbers. Five biggest cities in the country. Have something like six percent of the population so I think there. Is this idea out there that if you went to a national popular vote that literally candidates would go to five cities and those five cities would determine the fate of the rest of us. And that just doesn't track the numerical reality presidents would have to work hard in many more states and currently work hard into a mass votes. Could they go to every rural county in every state of course? Not but you want to look at the way you run a real popular election across a broad geographic area you have fifty laboratories right governors have to win statewide and do they just go to the two or three or four or five. They cities and their states. Of course not. We all have to concede with some humility that we don't know precisely how national a truly national presidential campaign would play out. But I do think it's easy to dismiss the suggestion that few cities would run the show. I think there's also an important conceptual to make under national pop thir- election state voting will matter for state offices but forty national opposite will not be necessarily relevant but the borders of your state are in so someone in Wyoming or Montana. They're state isn't necessarily. The relevant union of political action is them as an individual lines of connection and affiliation in political interests aren't actually state by state in the framework recognize. This Madison made this exact point in terms of the Senate. I'd like to go to another audience question. And this one comes from Dylan Dylan. Welcome to intelligence squared. And please tell us your question. When the founding fathers created the electoral college one of the chief functions they initiative performed with that of a failsafe against the sometimes poor judgment of popular opinion electors could step in to prevent the presidency from quote from. Federalists sixty eight falling into the lot of any man who is not an imminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. There's never been a meaningful enough number of faithless electors for the body to perform this function. Is there a way to reform the college? So it can perform these functions or are there alternative constitutional arrangements that we can make to prevent unqualified candidates from succeeding? Okay thank you Dylan and your question goes to you. Know what's the solution for the future which is not strictly speaking what we're debating. But what I found in your question was your presumption that the founding fathers didn't trust democracy didn't trust the general public to make wise decisions and that the original concept was that there would be a group of wise men and white men in that particular case but that their wisdom was the thing that was that would qualify them for this role of choosing the president for us in the long run since we started a little bit going back to the beginning. I'd like to go to you Bradley. That notion I think inherent in that and I think. Dillon likes the idea that the electoral college was meant to protect us from irrational choices. Made by the public and this is what the Supreme Court cases about now they should be able to make choices based on their consciences rather than reflecting the popular. Well this brings up a lot of different points but I tend to think that yes. They thought electrode used their judgment. But it would be very rare that you would want electors to go against the will of their state as expressed by their voters right. A lot of people look at for example two thousand sixteen and think that they may be they think that Donald trump should not have been elected. President elect should've turned against him. Well how would trump's voters have reacted to that? What would that do toward a sense of how the country is is operating? So I generally ben in favor of the notion that in fact electors are not bound but at the same time it would be very very rare that you would want any lecture to go against the understanding that people bring into the election that if my partner Mike candidate carries my state. That's how my electors are going to vote. I thought you said in your opening statement that you do not believe that the founding fathers were worried about Marlboro. That's I think I think when it comes to the notes of the convention the the regulations of the people who were there. It's clear that that was not their primary concern that there were thinking really in practical terms when it comes for to justifying the electoral college to the voters to ratify the constitution. This was one of the arguments Hamilton in particular us to to defend the electoral college thing. I WANNA COME TO A in Bradley's answer to the question is the faithless liked. I liked your question. In the sense that the voters would be state to have the expectation that Faithless electors meaning electors who do not vote in accordance with the partisan decision of the state or of the majority of voters in the state. So it I live. In Virginia. The Virginia votes for Joe Biden this November and one of Joe Biden's electors cast their vote for Donald Trump. That electorate be a faithless elector but this expectation that voters mistakes. That that that the Lakers vote in the court. The partisan choice of the state I think sits at cross purposes with this idea that the electoral college is meant to enhance the representation of political minorities in the country. Right if you live in a state where fifty point. One percent of the voters supported one candidate in forty nine point. Nine percent of the voters support the other candidate under the rules as exist. That forty nine point. Nine percent is politically disenfranchised and I I would. I would ask Listeners watchers to consider the extent to which if you don't agree with getting the Electoral College that the winner take all rules that we've adopted that we've grafted onto this institution. They seem to it's bay. Serve to rob. Millions of people have meaningful political representation in every state of the Union. You want to jump into this or do you want pass. I would just take one beat to say. There's a distinction. I think between a scheme that races duly cast votes the way. Our current state based Electoral College team does and a system in which you simply failed successfully carry a majority support for position. And I think that of course no one is claiming that any party that loses in a majoritarian contest is thereby disenfranchise But that there's a distinction between losing genuine and fair majoritarian contests and losing in a scheme in which certain votes are simply not relevant and effectively. Not counted going to push back on. Some of this will give liberties disenfranchised. We have changed how we think about this election but the fact of the matter is that we are talking about state level elections not one national election in that state level election for presidential elector. There are winners or losers also. This is not permanent situation and several other states that that were mentioned here. As as being supposedly in movable for like they'll never be able to make their voices heard so solidly Republican. We'll know they voted for Clinton. Not that long ago again. The Electoral College is balance. And how you balance things out over the country and you know for the rural voters in New York who probably feel really awful represented in their state. Government were in their presidential election. Well there are a rover voters in small city voters in small states and other parts of the country. They're getting a flame a little bit. It all balances out in that the end of the game the day. What we have is a system that reflects the variety of voices in this nation in data indicate. Okay and that concludes round two of this intelligence squared. Us debate we are about to hear brief. Closing statements. By each debater intern. So let's move onto round three closing remarks and here to make his statement closing the argument. The Electoral College has outlived its usefulness. Is Jim Buoy Jamila once again? The screen is all yours. I've mentioned at the beginning of our remarks throughout this conversation. Bat Not long after the the founding twenty thirty years later Some surviving people who participated all of this particular. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson decimated. How the Electoral College played out. They worried that winner. Take all the hyper partisanship involved We create unnecessary factionalism that it would create a political division that it would lead to the represent. Underrepresentation of political minorities encouraged presidencies. Don't actually govern for the entire nation and it's true that there have been large parts. Large Swath of this country sister were we have avoided some of the things but because of polarization happening in our culture not just in our politics but in our culture that the collection of ills that result from this Extra method of selecting the President One. That wasn't designed kind of just emerged as we as we as are politics emerged as we've become more polarized we been subject to these ills. More and more people genuinely believe that there are some how red states in blue states that. If you live in in New York that you are there for a Manhattan liberal that if you live in Wyoming that you are a rule conservative in Americans I feel have forgotten that political diversity exists in every state of the Union. That coalitions can be built across regions in the Cross states. That interests are ness tied. The state lines tied To things that go beyond them support the colleges outlived its usefulness in part because it's no wonder useful to think of another politics in these kind of bridge terms. Were to polarized and what the electoral college does is enhanced that polarization. And if you don't want to enhance it I think you should go on our side. Thanks very much Djamil our next speaker will be speaking against the resolution in her closing statement. Here is Tara. Ross going to ask everybody to put themselves in the face of the founders in a way that they've never done before the founders lived at any moment time they had just fought a war for self governance. Governance was really really important to them. They laid their lives on the line. They've lost fathers and sons and they also knew something else that we have forgotton okay. It's not enough to be self-governing. They knew that they again. The seat at the table impairment than they would have been outvoted time and time again by the majority of citizens at home in England so the founders had had problems fortunately the founders also lived a unique moment in time where there were a partisan interest. There was no Republican Party Democratic Party. What they had to help them with their knowledge of history and their knowledge of human nature and they knew that power corrupts. They knew what worked what had not worked in other democracies that came before them so they came up with a unique solution and the unique solution is our constitution which is incredibly blend of some democratic self government fast factors but also some Republican factor. Small art deliberation compromise in federalism states acting estates. This unique blend ensures that we can be a huge shivers country. The still manages to govern itself without ignoring some part of the country so that let's Polish has not outlived its usefulness because we are if anything greater and more diverse than we were before we are more in need of a unique solution to this problem of. How do you combine self-governance? With an avoidance the majority so I urge you to vote no on the resolution thank you. Tara and our next debater will be arguing on the opposite side once again for the resolution. The Electoral College has outlived. Its usefulness here is Kate Shaw thank you so look the ideals of both genuinely representative democracy and of basic political equality are ones. We have moved ever closer to throughout the country's history in perfectly inconsistently but steadily and it is not return to something that Brad said at the outset that in a democracy like ours everything must be put to a popular vote. Think about the role of courts in our system right who often do sit to invalidate laws passed by majorities in Congress or the states but in general and particularly when we were talking about elections any deviation from basic principles of representative democracy and political equality require genuine and compelling justifications and instead what we seem to be hearing our post hoc justifications of this idiosyncratic scheme that we happen to have today look to make one final point that actually turns a bit away from what we've been mostly talking about today. The presidency today is a massively powerful institution. We can debate. How well that power fits within our constitutional scheme? We can debate the wisdom of having a presidency like today's President. But no one should want an unchecked president. So it's important to ask how the mechanisms that operate to check. The president have performed in recent years and a word I would say they have performed badly. Take Congress important rival of the president it has been lax at best in its oversight of the president. Whatever you thought of the impeachment case against President trump one big takeaway seem to be. It's impossible to impeach convict and remove a president if his party or even a good number of CO partisans control the Senate Courts as well have been extraordinarily deferential to the president and when those institutions have failed to act to check the president. They have frequently done so pointing out that the most important check on the present is at the ballot box that he's the only person in our constitutional scheme who is elected by the people as a whole and so long as we have the Electoral College. That's actually not the system that we have at the ballot box isn't a real check on the president and none of these other operate. We actually don't have a president. We have a king and that is about as far as you can get from the idea of America so please I urge you to vote. Yes on the resolution. Thank you kate. Shaw and finally making his closing argument against the resolution. The Electoral College has outlived. Its usefulness arguing against Bradley Smith. I WanNa thank everyone for watching. I Kate for their thoughts. The great political scientists Walter Burns went said in all the years. I have engaged on this issue. I have yet to encounter. A critic of the Electoral College argues that president chosen by direct. Popular vote is likely to be a better president. The goal of our Constitution is good. Government and the purpose of the electoral college is to elect good presidents. We love to bash our presidents. And that's okay so uniquely American thing to do but if we set aside our partisanship and skepticism. We see that our list of chief executives is probably unrivalled by any country. Save possibly the United Kingdom which also allows the second-place finisher in the popular vote to win the Prime Minister's office. It's not just early. Presidents Washington Adams Jefferson Madison Monroe but mid twentieth and nineteenth century presents. Like polk and Lincoln and Cleveland McKinley and twentieth century. Presence like Wilson the Roosevelt's and coolidge in the postwar period. Truman and I can Kennedy and Reagan. Gw Bush and Clinton and Obama and while all of us will disagree with any number of them on policy leaving their side. That's pretty distinguished group when it comes to Rog -secutive talent so I often hear an argument to go something like this. If you could go back in time would you adopt the Electro College? My answer is simple. I said it earlier. I don't know what I would have done if I better delegates to the constitutional convention but I know this if I were transported back in time. September seventeen eighty seven and wash the delegates walk out of Independence Hall. I hope that I would have the good sense not to lecture. The likes of Washington Madison. Franklin James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton about how to Structure Successful Republic. And how like they had been and not anointing. Direct election by plurality vote of the electorate as the sole legitimizing principle for Chief Executive. We should not fear change but when something has a long distinguished pedigree and as created such a prosperous free societies. We live in. We should be very careful and humble before tossing it aside so I urge people to vote no on this resolution remember. The extra college doesn't outlive. Its usefulness just because our favorite son hasn't won a couple of elections. Thanks very much Bradley. Smith and that concludes round three of our intelligence squared debate. Now it's time to declare a winner. Remember it's the side that changes the most minds between the first and the second votes that is declared our winner we've had two votes now on the resolution. The Electoral College has outlived its usefulness. Here's how it went in the first vote. Sixty three percent of our audience agreed with the resolution. Twenty three percent were against it and fourteen percent were undecided so the team for the motion there. I was sixty three percent. Their second vote was seventy percent. The foreside pulled up seven percentage points. That's the number to beat. Let's look at the team against the resolution. Their first vote was twenty three percent. Their second vote was twenty eight percent. That's five percentage points not quite enough to win. It means the team arguing for the resolution Jamal Buoy and Kate. Shaw have one our debate by getting more of you to switch to the side saying yes to the resolution. The Electoral College has outlived. Its usefulness. I WanNa thank you all for joining us. Thank our debaters and I want you all to remember that the online voting is still going on at Iq to US dot org so go cast your second vote right now. Thank you for tuning into this episode of intelligence squared. Us debates this debate was produced in partnership with the northwestern Pritzker School of law. And it's part of the newt and Joe Meno debate series. Our debates are generously funded by listeners. Like you and by the Rosencrantz Foundation Clare. Connor is our CEO. Amy Craft is chief of staff Shell. Mera is director of editorial Conor. Kirkman is our creative and marketing. Strategist Jennifer. Elmer is our senior researcher. Mary Doing Dalton our our radio producers. Robert Rosencrantz is our chairman. And I'm your host and your moderator John Ben.

president Us Bradley Smith Shaw Kate Kate Shaw Electoral College Tara Takeaway Electoral College electoral House partner United States Senate James Madison Congress Tara Tara Donald Trump chief executive Supreme Court
Impeachment 101

FiveThirtyEight Politics

42:06 min | 10 months ago

Impeachment 101

"Ooh Hello and welcome to define for politics podcast I'm Gaylon Luke and this is impeachment one we're GONNA be talking plenty about impeachment in the coming months so today we're going to take a step back and look at why impeachment was written into our House Democrats earlier this week he wrote that. Democrats impeachment inquiry is unconstitutional for numerous reasons including that there hasn't been a House vote on it and his letter was panned by legal scholars of all persuasions as not based in American law so how exactly is impeachment supposed to work and here to dig into that with me is ABC the President Vice President and all civil officers of the United States she'll be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason bribery or other a high crimes and misdemeanors what does that mean so the phrase other high crimes and misdemeanors is obviously the sort of the most important kind of phrase in the Constitution that deals with impeachment there news contributor. Kate Shaw welcome thanks for having Me Kate is a law professor at the Cardozo School of law and also co host the strict scrutiny podcasts which if you're watching this on ABC News live going to get to that letter but let's start with a big potentially loaded question right so section to Article Four of the Constitution which describes impeachment reads Democrats aren't allowed the president due process civil only clarified that the White House will not comply with subpoenas or allow employees of the executive branch to testify sorta pretty quickly so then the big question is okay so then what is like what kind of conduct could lead to impeachment and removal and initially the language that's in the constant supermajority in the Senate vote to convict and that the consequences of impeachment will be limited to remove from office and potential disqualification for future office holding so there's all these sort of ethics that you know aren't that hard to Parse right there actually pretty clear but then the language that is the hardest is this other high crimes and misdemeanors so you know I think it's hard to get corruption kind of interesting so some of the final language and corruption is in there they later take corruption out we have no real explanation as to why leaving just treason or bribery huns and the drafting history about it there's initially debate about whether there should be some mechanism for removing the president at all and if so what that mechanism should be who should hold the power and there's what doing your job or something there's some concern that maybe that's wrong in that it's too low bar and so the language is replaced with treason bribery a bunch of different provisions that have to do with the procedures for impeachment there's part giving the power of impeachment to the House and then the power to trial impeachments to the Senate there's the requirement that he two-thirds doc some thought that maybe the Supreme Court should have the power of impeachment or a majority of state legislature should vote to impeach the president but they quickly decide not congress it should be the house and the Senate so those parts they sort of Asian and at the convention in June of seventeen eighty seven to get real detailed is impeachment should be available for malpractice or neglect of duty so it's actually kind of broader like in your you can see you're wearing a t-shirt see I'll come another podcast but I have to use these those cross promotional opportunities absolutely I totally appreciate that anyway thank you for being here and in your job they can remove you so treason bribery stay maladministration gets replaced with high crimes and misdemeanors so that's a language we we inherit and what does it mean it turns out there array to answer to sort of what that means it's a contested question right people disagree about it but maybe I'll tell you a little bit about how it ends up in the constitution in that formulation so there's not means is abuse of office committing the kind of misconduct that requires some public position to commit so high crimes and misdemeanors shouldn't be understood as like really really bad crimes they then add maladministration essentially just doing another another car toys R. Bad really bad at your job and Madison whose one of the most important draft of the Constitution object that he says that's so vague it'll be equivalent to attend your during pleasure of the Senate so the Senate just doesn't like you misdemeanors but the kinds of misconduct and abusive action that can only happen if you hold some public office so abuse of trust sort of this idea of corruption that was in the original version are some English kind of common-law antecedents this is a phrase that is kind of a term of art under English common law and most historians and scholars I think seem to think that basically what it thought impeachment should happen in the judiciary it should be applied to crimes and we should use our federal criminal code in order to adjudicate what is impeachable and what is not the House Judiciary Committee did approve articles of impeachment against him and those looked like criminal fences and so did the bribery and obstruction of justice charges approved in the House against President Clinton it has been violated in order to successfully mount a some sort of impeachment effort President Nixon's lawyers made that argument in nineteen seventy four and President Clinton's lawyers made that argument that that things presidential impeachment of Andrew Johnson charge conduct that really none of which really violated any particular criminal statutes one more thing I will say about the kind of criminal analog is it there that these are political offenses and they don't need to look crimes but it is true the way that impeachment is if we look at impeachment history the way impeachment was charged both against Nixon Nixon was never impeached by the needed to be crimes and why is that usually just you know the president's legal counsel when they're facing impeachment that believes that are there legal scholars who study the constitution the specific demands that are outlined in the president the White House counsel's letter from earlier this week I don't think there's a lot of support in law practice for all of that it is generally the relationship with the president of Ukraine and pressuring the president of Ukraine to investigate the Biden's whether or not that is an impeachable offense is there some kind of our scholars who think even if they don't think that high crimes and misdemeanors have to be specific federal crimes that there should be criminal type protections that the president as defendant should at least one and maybe multiple impeachment charges that if impeachment is about abuse of office about misconduct for personal gain that can only be in Disfie- by the allegations that we've seen so far although I think that you know scholars and lawyers generally do think that more evidentiary development would be optimal now gauged in by virtue of holding a particular public office if it's about self interest over public interest of all of these things are kind of the essence of impeachment all that seems to be basically to the letter and but not just being really really bad your job was there some debate so this was taken on by parliament in the British context did we just decide best to copy them whether people who there's let me unpack the question a little bit there have been debates about the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors and there there have definitely been factions that have said yes you should be able to point to something in the criminal code who say no it has to be a federal crime you know yes I think there are there are scholars who think that I think that the weight of scholarly thinking is much more in the sort of the I can't describe this is within the legal community you know I wouldn't say there's unanimity but I do think there's pretty cross ideological consensus that there is a lot of evidence here that would support and comes to a trial in the Senate at this moment how much debate is there in the legal community over whether the evidence that has already available about present case that the House has a lot of control over how to run its own impeachment process and that these kinds of questions about the protections for the president seem much more to be triggered and is that also in the house where impeachment gets voted on not just in the Senate where there is an actual trial and conviction like president trump's lawyer was in question I mean I think at at a very broad level of generality that there should be some rigorous procedures in place in the House I don't think that's that disputed a proposition but but whether the enjoy when going through impeachment trial the house it's a little trickier like you know it's not a trial anyway but but that is important just as a matter of principle that it is you know it is so that that pets practice has largely reflected that but the question is is that because it had to or because they're just was conduct that happened to track particular criminal offenses and I will say the first is to vote for you for your reelection or you know blanket parts register Republicans in federal prison right like again there's nothing criminal about doing that but it's obviously an abuse of power mm unity on impeachment how big is that spread like if we're talking about impeachment again more generally are there people who think that you should be able to get impeached for petty crimes and the argument that he should have his lawyer should be present when people are being questioned as part of the house inquiry are there people who back him up on that or is that also in question I think it's definitely no matter how trivial or petty should be impeachable. I've heard this line that this may be an impeachable offense what president trump has done in terms of x get updates example and say Muslims president say makes that promise and then follows through on it that seems obviously impeachable but again not criminal and there's not really any other mechanism you couldn't force the president to appoint anyone to there is a real question about how much the house is going to be able to even get access to but it does feel like there are more facts that are worth finding we've talked about some disagreements within the League analogous enough to criminal procedure that you should think about a defendant as enjoying basically the same protections that a criminal defendant what even if you don't accept that the conduct charge has to be criminal in the Clinton impeachment proceedings and ended up not really going anywhere but you know some kind of formal expression of disapproval is important but that this kind of doesn't rise to the level of about why the constitution is left vague when it comes to high crimes and misdemeanors none everything is spelled out literally in our constant present so so in some ways that's if there's not really any other way to address a particular item misconduct but I don't think there's anyone who really thinks to go back to your question that any crime will and should obviously not be impeachable so that's sort of one end of the spectrum and then there are things that are clearly not crimes in an example that another law professor give doing their job as intended by the founders how much of our Constitution rests on those kind of unwritten rules or norms officiant to warrant impeachment so there are definitely crimes really serious parking stop for traffic violations I mean presidents don't drive much but occasionally they do so really bad traffic moving violation might be criminal I mean I gather that it means something like you know it should be subject to some kind of public sanctions something like a censure but that it doesn't warrant removal and that I guess impeachment in the House is what that is I just the Constitution doesn't make any distinction it should be the case that you know everybody in the house and everyone in the Senate like members of Congress and oath to uphold the constitution the constitution just has one what does that mean I know that may not be like your take on asking you to describe somebody else's position but is that like a legitimate position to take what does that mean another example that a lot presser gives is for kind of non crime but potentially impeachable a promise not to appoint anyone of a particular religion to public office right in the example he gives his Roman Catholic during the president of Ukraine and to be determined the extent to which military aid was part of that that it may be an impeachable offense but it doesn't warrant being removed from office SORTA unitary standard at high crimes and misdemeanors and the House I think should impeach if it believes that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors and the Senate should convict you should and as you mentioned that in some ways can be an asset because the founding fathers the framers couldn't think of every possible circumstance under which a president may not be this is a president who just literally doesn't show up to work for six months and it's not anywhere near an election it's like that's not criminal either you know you can not show up to work but obviously would warrant at the United States shall be subject to impeachment and removal upon conviction so there there is some history here has the legal consumption of the purpose of impeachment picking up dirt on a political rival is a kind of bribery or extortion offense that actually is separately subject to impeachment under the Constitution. I want to get into a little bit you know like Jaywalking or not paying your parking tickets I don't even know if that's actually a crime anywhere but like what's the spread in the legal community I think that most people and why somebody might be impeached had evolved over time or are we still pretty much in line with what the framers intended I think we we will have to see how the bouquets that should additional facts emerge this could though exchange of you know a promise for military aid for a promise to aid in you know there's a very classic text on impeachment from Nineteen seventy four by Professor Charles Black and he I think makes the case that again most people seem except that a specific criminal act is neither necessary nor if it reaches the same conclusion so I don't see any kind of like dual ism in the standards and by the way I should say we're all really focused on crimes misdemeanors but bribery is a separately enumerated in peace offenses and yet the way I think of authority even you know there wasn't tons of debate about this at every moment in our history I think that in the nineteen seventies you saw a real flowering of kind of for ways of doing things that are not spelled out explicitly most of the important provision in the constitution are like that there's some oddly specific parts of the constitution offense in the constitution you know so even if you sort of said look nobody can decide what high crime or misdemeanor is and throw your hands at least there is a plausible law the freedom of speech so you know I.. I don't think it's unusual that this important sort of constitutional phrase is one that is subject to interpret Asian and like every other constitutional provisions of any import they kind of intervening experience sort of flesh out and gives meaning right to these otherwise fairly open ended take terms and so I do think it's inborn to look at what impeachment history shows right so it has always been the case that we have understood practice to help fill in some of the gaps in the constitution consensus we talked about this on the podcast when we actually discussed brexit and the British constitution which is not written down and sort of whether that means the it's sort of school of thought is is using a shorthand for kind of censor and censure has been an alternative it was very much a formal condemnation of the president's conduct that was on the table each mint and then and then there are things that you can do as the president is sort of you know abused power right so grant a blanket pardon say to anybody who promised passage of power from an outgoing and incoming president happened so there are these moments of real specificity but most of the constitution's important provisions are broad and general equal protection of the law due process it doesn't have a Constitution at Sarah does any democracy literally right down every way that the government is supposed to function no of course not but they're definitely our constitutions that are like the president has to be thirty five and then you know an inauguration is at noon on January twentieth I mean really that's in the constitution that's when the Sir sex equality and healthcare and in many of those places those are sort of you know a federal promises that aren't actually implemented in practice so I think that you can have an open ended contested and that there will be presidents will make arguments that for lots of process protections for a narrow conception of high crimes and misdemeanors that tracks these proceedings play out with respect to president trump but I think that what each of the three presidential impeachment experiences that we've had has shown is that there is you know some of the stuff since the seventies these the the kind of general description that I gave of impeachment assorted for political misconduct has been the kind of at least kind of dominant view the constitution that leaves a lot unspecified and a sort of society in which there actually is expression into a lot of those values that are actually written into the constitution and tendered or something a legal standard called clear and convincing evidence or just a preponderance of the evidence of these different you know and there are tons of little procedural questions like that scholarly thinking about impeachment what it was four and how it should proceed and then again in the nineteen nineties with Bill Clinton and so can you know we're sort of in this third golden age I guess of really thinking about it but I do think that I think are very much debated but I would say you might find others who disagree but I would say that the kind of adds to the sort of core purposes there is a broad if again not unanimous in an affirmative way present in the constitution but again the whole document presumes it so I don't this is I think another example of sometimes the meaninglessness of this sort of but subject to lots of sort of debate and also questions about sort of what proof standard should be how you're should members of either the house where the Senate be we think about this as like some kind of proof beyond a reasonable doubts or rights against denial of the right to vote on various species on the basis of race on the basis of sexy of the fifteenth amendment and the Nineteenth Amendment these amendments but they right they and so they you know we scholar. Tom is a one stop shop for hair loss skin care and other wellness supplements for men thanks to Science Baldness can be optional hymns helping guys be the best version of themselves with license table look all of those things presuppose there is this right that can't be abridged on account of these characteristics but you're totally right the actual right itself is not that I mentioned at the top it made some pretty big claims about the law and precedent surrounding impeachment in your estimation what are some of the main is any bald spots yet the best way to prevent more hair loss is to do something about it while you still have some it's time to get a handle on those precious locks four hymns dot com more detailed and much longer than ours or lots of institutions that have tons of enumerated individual rights protections You know things like right rights to clean water and air and course the congress as possible so you can have an extraordinarily detail constitution that in fact bears very little relationship to the lived experience of people who are governed by it so you know I think that it's physicians and FDA approved products to help treat hair loss new snake oil pills or gas station connor supplements just prescription solutions backed by science order now listeners heap behind the curtain listeners before we started this podcast I was like we'd like to get walking me like to get feel free let's bring it back to today in just a minute but first today's podcast is brought to you by ah the written document only does so much either way yeah one thing. I think we've mentioned on this podcast before and always is really striking to hear is that the right to vote is not and leaves open and so you know we have had if you presidential impeachments and we've had other impeachments of non presidents because of course it's not just the president the concert says the president the vice president other all of other officers uh-huh sixty six percent of men start to lose their hair by age thirty five once you've noticed thinning hair it can be too late is that heroin slowly starting to move backward claims that he made the letter did feel to me and I think a lot of scholars felt the same way like a political document and naughtily documents so it's not making many it cost hundreds if you went to the doctor or pharmacy somewhere else go to four hymns dot com slash five three eight that's four Hymns F. O. R. H. in the Constitution it's kind of part of our norms that has been lived out over centuries and has evolved over centuries but not actually in the constitutional say look it's the solution and how it's been interpreted since we've been planning to talk about the topic anyway but President Trump's lawyer pat sip baloney made it particularly pertinent in a letter civics that are identified in terms of you know sort of support such as it goes for this kind of unfairness claimer this point that the president has raised repeatedly that there's no house resolution that's can get started with the hymns complete haircut for just five dollars today right now while supplies lasts and subject to doctor's approval see website for full details and safety information this the House has total control over how to structure its proceedings that is actually in the Constitution the how shall control the rules of its own proceedings so for the White House to tell the house how it needs to go about doing M. S. dot com slash five three eight four hymns dot com slash five three eight or we're back and this letter from trump's lawyers come to pass over particular document and witness testimony I think a court actually may be more inclined to side with a House that is acting pursuant to a resolution passed by the full body a traditional legal arguments right so there's a lot of this is outrageous and unfair and the president did nothing wrong those are really legal arguments so some of the been passed and look I think it is true that there were resolutions passed in the three previous I mean it is definitely true that their resolutions passed in the three previous impeachment efforts but something the constitution gives at the explicit power to do which is to the power of impeachment. I think is pretty unsupported it's literally like saying every previous presidential impeachment witness or not a particular guarantees in the constitution all right so we've gotten a little wonky here which we always love undecided at eight politics said it was okay yeah absolutely I just it began on Thursday right like that might be true but it's kind of irrelevant right if it's not required invite editor of source of law that they start on Thursday by the way I've no idea when they started but it feels you know roughly like that in some ways like you know and they made manufacturer some other objection if Speaker Pelosi does decide to pass a resolution as I have said publicly I think that would probably would probably be wise to do in part not because of this insistence on the White House apart that it has been done previously but actually because in court battles should those it does make sense but this kind of this because it's been done before it must be done now or the enterprise illegitimate is quite unsupported and some of these other factors like the president should have the right to cross rather than a single committee particularly because we are in this situation now where there are a bunch of committees and there could be multiple request for documents from so I do think kind of pragmatically long would it take if this ends up at the Supreme Court historically the Congress would itself so I they need to issue subpoenas and as historic no matter there are really three routes to enforce for a congressional subpoena to be enforced the first is essentially this inherent contempt power so congress used to have the sergeant of arms at. I think that it's important not to underestimate how important kind of public pressure and public opinion is on shaping the course of impeachment I mean look you know the fact that the White House as quickly as it did all of these procedural protections afforded in the House and that most of that has previously arisen in the Senate now look with Clinton at somewhat immaterial because there was this in capital and that hasn't been used for you know since the nineteen thirties really so I think that you know there is some interest in reviving that kind of inherent contempt power but think there's you know maybe some of each is the real explanation and so I think that if sort of public pressure grows for more cooperation than we've seen so far than subpoenas that employees of the executive branch may not show up to give testimony how does this compare with how past presidents have responded to these kinds of inquiries in this is pretty it strikes me that the the general organs being made are much more applicable to the Senate then to the house president trump were made clear that the White House doesn't intend to comply with released the summary of the telephone call the allowed the whistle blower complaint and the testimony from acting DNA to all be made public one theory is that the White House independent body right the independent counsel Ken Starr did really all the fact-finding handed a report to the House and the House did headstart testify and did a little bit of additional factual development but so negative and so strong and swift that almost immediately he agreed to the appointment of a new special prosecutor so you know he didn't go into this firing assuming that there is called witnesses and did cross examination and all of that so again I haven't gone back to the historical record and compared it to the to this letter close enough to make any like really strong claims but here we're talking about the house how sergeant actually go in like physically arrest the individual who was failing to cooperate and imprison them in a little cell in the basement of the VR very very little essentially just voted articles impeachment and pass over to the Senate and there was much more process in the Senate of course the president's lawyers were intimately involved in everything that happened in the Senate and there's you know the White House's response could really change I mean look like you know President Nixon obviously fired the first special counsel who was investigating Jabbour Cox and the public reaction was uses in the modern era is essentially just to go to court and try to enforce subpoenas in court and that's you know and the last couple of disputes between uncharted past presidents have been far more cooperative than this so I'll say a couple of things one I wouldn't take this letter as the final word from the White House on on what their cooperation will be gene Congress and the executive branch to get executive branch official testimony have resulted in victories for Congress so actually there's an just district court opinions but they really failed to grasp the magnitude of misconduct that was revealed by all this but another is that they actually felt like the pressure was too powerful to resist in that they had to so the furthest judicial process to run its course I think that courts would be willing to move much faster than they ordinarily would if the if the house uh-huh similar to what you just described the White House saying this is how you should go about it but is not actually necessary in order to conduct an impeachment is there are there more grounds there so got a prosecutor who by the way got more investigative powers in the original one did so I think that all of this just incredibly dynamic but it does sound like at least the position the opening position the White House is one of Ah something necessarily getting off the ground so that's sort of historical answer I have I read somewhere today somebody making the argument that the house should arrest Rudy Giuliani right that's what they would they would use the US isn't can't be constitutionally required to carry out the houses commands this way so doj doesn't abide by this statute so the third one this is really the only route the congress will I have not tested the the particular claims that the letter makes against the house proceedings in previous presidential impeachment efforts my sense that they have vastly overstated the degree that would have them voting articles of impeachment before the New Year so it will be interesting to see how the house ways it's priority of trying to make this happen quickly there is a statute that allows Congress to refer its contempt citations and says the standard that allows Congress to essentially make a referral to the Department of Justice to enforce its six years something could be before the supreme court that's an aggressive prediction but I don't think it's impossible and that also is still not even in line with how quickly the house wants to move on this you know some Democrats have laid out an agenda total non-cooperation and stonewalling if it were to maintain this position and I you know it's not going to give you any information if you want to go to court go to court what does that process look like an even stronger position if it's conducting an impeachment inquiry I think pretty much everybody believes so the only real issue then is or there's a few issues but one big one is it just takes time arms th is is something that I think no one really wants to see happen but that's okay so that's one possibility sort of possibility to is that it is currently made up feels about executive power and its ability to kind of resist investigations from the House you know so there's one big yeah yeah and actually I don't even know so I know that Josh Davis is a great Congress scholar as it has times op-ed arguing for this sort of revival there's inherent contemporary I can't remember if he talks about versus trying to get evidence and testimony if this is you were to reach the Supreme Court what do we know about how the Supreme Court leaders of the President and his staff is to say this executive privilege as a constitutional shield that keeps all these kinds of private communications from Congress or from other interested parties for up Watergate so that cases important because it explains the executive privilege isn't absolute but it doesn't give us any clues as to sort of how this kind of Congress president showdown would be inst- team going right to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court sort of deciding to decide disheartening to decide quickly because of the stakes and the fact that the president is a party in theory by early moved quickly to bring the courts into this and again that's why I actually do think a full House resolution would strengthen the litigation position of the house because you know the President Says House decided to try to enforce a couple of next week in court I could see a district court opinion within a couple of months say by December and if and if it's an opinion adverse to the president I suggest that you know that actually congress isn't a pretty strong position when it's time when a half it has a really good reason it's conducting an investigation and that's to relatively recent examples or it's Juliani but it's not a crazy argument in the historically Congress did exercise it but and Juliana as a private citizen so it's not like we're talking about bill bar the standoff between the Department of Justice and how the hugely important precedent here is that Nixon tapes as it's unanimous opinion nineteen seventy four finding that executive privilege doesn't permit the president to withhold these tapes the problem there is that's not a dispute between can assert some constitutional privilege which is by the way not even really with the letters about typically like that's the way that the White House would resist requests for say communication between the president and a little bit it comes down to or one thing that might be important as this supreme court I think in this chief justice believe that that the integrity of the courts and the Supreme Court as you know cream court I think we think they have a pretty muscular vision of executive power and presidential power in particular but you know I think that unknowns on this kind of presidential power question although I think that the people suspect that the their sympathies would be with the president and that you know in this issue like a lot of others that actually the chief justice the House passed resolution it's in an impeachment inquiry this evidence is critical for reasons that they'll explain to the court you know executive privilege isn't absolute it's a qualified on the court Subpoenas Department of Justice then goes to court the problem is that the DOJ and not just that the this administration but there's now a view that the Department of Justice the report made that clear in the Nixon tapes case and so I think there's a good chance that Congress wins the question is just how long it takes I mean how long could something like this take I know it's hard to say because it's up to the court in hoster go through several levels of courts and they can take they want but any idea I mean look if the if a if a district court quickly ruled in favor of Congress the trump justice department has shown evolvement in these proceedings at all but courts are courts don't like these cases they're going to want to say you guys work it out on your own but if the if Congress can show that the White House is categorically unwilling to salty even by that Supreme Court you know they have like a footnote in which they say we're not talking about Congress we're talking about a different context here's the criminal prosecution but of course you know much more important question is this particular standing or precedent for how these kinds of things should play out have we just never tested our constitution in this way never tested the checks and balances that we have in place you know of a nonsensical position but the truth is there just aren't that many core presidential power cases in the lower courts and so just gorsuch justice cavanaugh are a little bit president and the House I can see the kind of institutional interest of the court being activated in a way that you know tipped them at least slightly tip actually because there is this long history of kind of negotiation accommodation between the political branches when these kinds of disputes arise so typically Congress and the executive branch you know if it's an agent another important SORTA coequal branch of government is a principle that they have to protect so if defiance of courts were to enter the picture during the course of this dispute between the ministration more broadly doesn't seem to be participating in the process of negotiation and accommodation that typically obviates the need to invoke any kind of judicial and decides to eight totally checkout or be to ignore the authority of religion Mri of some kind of critical other player in attention at least consider siding with the house you know it's the newest members of the court are have complicated views about this because they have they're very skeptical about administrative agents on a real propensity to try to leapfrog the intermediate appellate court and go right to the supreme court typically because it thinks it you know it's got a supreme court that's pretty sympathetic to its interests and so I can see you know if the would by the way the person presiding over a Senate trial if it came to that is the person who would very likely cast the deciding vote in a case like this why don't we have a lot of under of the president's executive privilege but it's like you know single digit number of important cases on a big big important topic but there are tons these disputes that arise all the time but right the answer is is and the power administrative agencies sort of exercising power at all but it's not a general skepticism of the executive branch because they seem to be quite disaster about presidential power so it does feel like hard to some of these things are hard to define in the abstract so I think yes I mean things that are serious conflicts between the branches right they're almost always worked out informally in ways that don't create any kind of binding precedent and so far at least this trump justice department White House and kind of lease that would prevent any kind of sort of binding resolution that feels like we're sort of May maybe some kind of like rough and probably too wordy kind of definition like ignore supreme I know there's GonNa be a rabbit hole in potentially we should say this for whole other podcast altogether but does the word constitutional crisis apply in any of the circumstances that we're talking about like I guess I understood it to mean when a situation arises that the constitution does not have a prescription for and the branches are unable to resolve it is that more or less do this kind of traditional negotiation process than I think a court might be more willing to you know resolve this dispute at all and resolve it fairly quickly and you know not in the White House's favor it's not even really doing that but that's how would probably play out his congress asking tries to enforce a subpoena in court executive branch invoke some kind of executive privilege and court just kind of balance and the court is has provided the final word so in that scenario or you know obviously in a scenario in which the Supreme Court issues that ruling a refusal to do it I think would clearly a crisis to wrap up a little bit back in the place where we started you know no president has ever been impeached and convicted and removed from office right we judicial resolution so everyone is sort of uses courts as a backstop so this is kind of handful of opinions and again the opinions do you know favor a non absolutist vision by the federal courts I think that's actually an important kind of principle in terms of the institutions holding so far two and a half years in this administration and so you know I think that I would have every reason to hope there's some anticipation that some holders of the office would become so intolerable that election wasn't enough of a check and so it is there for a reason and See of lower courts you know rhetorically by this president but inaction this administration has very quickly complied with even adverse rulings you think that impeachment should be kind of like a regular thing or when they wrote it do you think they would would have imagined that two hundred thirty years later it's not something that would have ever been resorted to to be within actually sort of kind of the reasonable number range I don't think that it was written into the constitution to be you know sort of a nullity in there I think that it was written because grissom the president that's a dispute between this independent counsel and a grand jury right seeking evidence in conjunction with criminal prosecutions of some of the individuals who had been associated with the break in you know so three over the course of our history re two and a half kind of there would have been a third actually seems to me you know we're obviously embarking on the fourth right now constitutional crisis is yeah I think that's I don't feel like I have a great definition at the ready I think that one is pretty good because it's like that word that phrase got it was never meant to be invoked regularly cavalierly and I actually think that you know I think that the history's judgment is largely that the impeachment of Bill Clinton was quite it could be moving in this direction where it's like agent the president has basically unlimited power the executive power but the president has exercise at all by himself right like you can't have agencies do anything which is like actually put us into genuine and undisputed constitutional crisis mode and I think we have you know Thurs been a little flirtation with that you know sort of questioning the authority of or legitimate like thrown around and I wondered does anybody even know what it means or why were using it maybe it's one of these know it when you see it where things if there are mechanisms for resolving them then those aren't content constitutional crises. I agree with that I think right it is I think maybe one one party to a dispute oral feeling but that the conduct itself the underlying conduct with respect as affair with Monica Lewinsky and then the obstruction and perjury all in the service of concealing that sort of hi presidents who have been impeached obviously do you think that impeachment has been used as it was intended by the framers like did they you know there was no real choice to be made here and I would hope that in that scenario the same thing would happen with a lawyer around president trump But that is I think the perfect example something that would be mistaken that in fact the misconduct charged did not rise the level of high crimes and misdemeanors that the obviously serious personal Were drafted in what he was really impeached for was really impeached for was obstructing the process of reconstruction after the civil war right one in the southern states be readmitted without mandatory the Supreme Court and actually even a lower court so I thought about this if a lower court rules against the president and the Supreme Court declined to take which is not that likely but it's not impossible then that underlying act was not in fact the kind of thing that the framers intended but actually the other two so Andrew Johnson who was impeached ostensibly for firing his secretary of war but that that would continue you know there was some question about what the President Nixon would comply when Supreme Court ordered the tapes to be released but the lawyers around him I think quickly made it clear that this was not political gain so if you say there've been to properly done impeachment in history and maybe we're embarking a third now you know with this sort of the denominator that we have I think that's actually you know about the simply partisanship because under the circumstances of Andrew Johnson partisanship wasn't to the degree that it is today so why hasn't the full impart probably yes so in some ways it kind of worked in this indirect or acute way and I think everyone believes most people anyway believe that Nixon in the ultimate example to me of constitutional crisis that would be you know nobody would be able to really dispute that we were in a constitutional crisis would be the White House defying an order right amount but nobody's actually ever been removed from office so where's the hiccup in how this was intended versus how this is actually played out is it invicta remove he fell one vote short their allegations at the time and afterwards that the deciding vote was from a senator who had been bribed or promised things so that maybe in fact this was the handed process to begin with and so this is eighteen sixty eight when he just narrowly escapes removal and the election later that year he doesn't even get his party's nomination to run for president again so although he's not removed in that way he's removed soon thereafter and so is that because he's so politically damaged by having gone through this impeachment the orphan the White House sort of wherever it is in the executive branch kind of work it out among themselves so it's very rare that anybody even goes to court and if anybody does often they settle before any final I just read the United States like his public rhetoric was pretty nuts and it's at the center of one of the articles of impeachment so with Johnson there's a bit of a mismatch between the way the the impeachment was sort of the article the law in the Post Civil War United States they didn't really make that clear that's why they're impeaching him but you know this is the Republican Congress that you know wanted to try mean they were flawed all kinds of ways but many of them at least the leaders wanted to try to build this kind of like genuinely multiracial democracy in the Post Civil War United States and he wanted to thwart that returns kind of that's great news examined witnesses and should have access to all the evidence and all kinds of information that they say is part of due process in a regular court I mean is that enfranchisement on the same terms they had been members of the union previously without any kind of military oversight by the north basically trying to thwart reconstruction and sort of to see you know to to write inequality in but you know there are eleven articles of impeachment nine or about this firing a secretary of war but to our about kind of general misconduct one is about his intemperate harangues unbecoming of a chief Chow is in the control room or intern is Jake Arlo you can get in touch by emailing us at podcast at five thirty eight dot com you can also of course tweeted us with questions or comments aide I mean especially if more evidence comes out and it becomes like patently apparent that this is an impeachable offense but only time will tell unfortunately at a certain point with should be impeached but not remove so so I think the answer is a little bit different with respect to each of the impeachments I think with Johnson so the the concentra requires two thirds of the senators to vote to and chip but you tell me we're going to find out what time right this is going to test all of the assumptions that we have about the strength of partisanship over the past decade would have succeeded. I think as the framers intended had he decided to just stay the course and fight it out but of course you're the hyper polarization of the moment we're living means that these historical examples only go so if you're a fan of the show leave us a rating or review in the apple podcasts door tells them what about us thanks for listening and we'll see when they are sitting as jurists basically deciding on guilt or innocence particularly with respect to the president and that that should require them to transcend partisanship in like law and public opinion but anyway I think that's where we'll leave things so thank you so much for joining me today I've learned a lot I really appreciate it thank you for having me it was really fun that was Kate Shaw about the Johnson impeachment called the impeaches by Brine Apple that sort of tells that version of history but that's the kind of thing that you know if he probably was with Nixon corrupt abuse of the Office for She's a law professor at Cardozo School of Law and Co hosts the strict scrutiny podcast which is definitely worth checking out thank you so much again for being here today my name is galen drew you're only tell us so much. I mean you know the idea is like the senators who are deciding on this they take a separate oath right this oath I think ideas that they are serving in a different capacity have been removed right had he not resigned when he did so in some ways the fact that the process wasn't allowed to run its course warps the sort of the overall picture that impeachment gives us in history he you know awesome laid out in the constitution ever played out so yes so so is the question why hasn't it ever worked and you know. I think it depends on what we think sort of working isn't that a little bit goes back to your question about is it coherent as and is that something that's impossible in this moment you host the politics podcast. I feel like that's a question that I just don't have the answer to in law only goes so far I would hope we can sell transcend partisan.

president White House President Trump President Vice President congress bribery Kate Shaw ABC United States Gaylon Luke professor Supreme Court Cardozo School of law vice president ABC News Senate Professor Charles Black Tom
Miami Twice

Start Here

23:26 min | 1 year ago

Miami Twice

"It's Friday, June twenty eighth. And every once in a while the sequel is better than the original, we start here. Debate night number to send shockwaves through the democratic field show Biden was right when he said it was time to pass torch to a new generation of Americans thirty two years ago is still today as vita Bernie Sanders defender front runner status. A new face bursts onto the scene is your city council made that decision. What we have. You want the biggest moments of the political year, might have just arrived on a few sheets of paper, they dealt in a pretty serious blow. Did they kill it? Not totally clear from Miami to Washington. What a difference. Twenty four hours to make from ABC news. This is start here. I'm Brad milkey? Are you hiring with indeed? You can post a job in minutes. Set up screener questions, then zero in on your shortlist of qualified candidates using an online dashboard. Get started today at indeed dot com slash start here. That's indeed dot com slash start here. We are back at the hottest spot in American politics performing arts center in Miami, Florida. Which for the second time last night, hosted a crop of ten candidates vying for the presidency, but for the first time we had two candidates who had done this before. Boomer vice president, Joe Biden ran for president in two thousand eight of course, Senator Bernie Sanders seemingly never quit. And so with a couple of heavyweights on stage, it took much less time for the gloves to come off. But I'm gonna let you in dirty little secret of a presidential primary. There are some things you say in a debate that are meant to be a headline in the morning. They're meant to get that win their other things. You say that are meant to be a slow burn your laying the groundwork to winning the whole thing. So let's get into it. Let's figure out who did what right is the candidate started. Drifting back to the spin room. I went to our deputy political director, maryalice parks, who's watched a lot of the base. Maryalice brad. Okay. This NBC debate is now a rap first impressions tonight. Was significantly more feisty than other democratic debates. We've seen recently and significantly more than just last night. The candidates did not want to wait to be called on. And they didn't wait to call on each other at all. I remember that is Donald Trump. Thanks Wall Street problematic ordinary middle class Americans, Bill Marica. Vice president Joe Biden really wanted to be on offense within the first three words of his appearance, he mentioned the president, but pretty quickly that turned and he was really on defense or most of the night. Okay. Yeah. Then I mean, walk me through it, then how did this play out right right away at the beginning, California, congressman Eric swallow from the side of the stage, but it in and quoted Biden back to him. I was six years old when a presidential candidate came to the California, Democratic convention, and said, it's time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans back candidate was then Senator Joe Biden, Joe Biden, was right, when he said it was time to pass torch to a new generation of Americans thirty two years ago. He's still today. He was making a generational argument and saying, I'm a millennial. I'm not sure he actually counts as a millennial. He's an old melon realize millennial, but he was trying to say I represent a generational change. Joe biden. It's time to pass the torch vice-president. Would you like to sing a torch? I'm still hold on to that torch. Sorely actor. I think Senator Harris Lancet big line. It might have been a kind of plan canned line, but it worked in the real issue. Center. Candidates talking over each other starting to seem our control. Hey guys, you know what America does not want to witness a food fight? They wanna know how we're going to put food on their table. Little cheesy, but big applause line and made her look really powerful in the moment. That moment was actually just the beginning of what I think, became Senator Harris night. There were multiple moments where she really painted personal pictures. She had personal stories about healthcare personal stories about immigration, and then the big moment. I would like to speak on the. She lands in very personal punch back towards Joe Biden. I do not believe you are a racist. And I agree with you. When you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground, but I also believe it's personal. And I was actually very it was hurtful. To hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing. She talked about her experience, and there was a little girl in California, who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day, and that little girl was me, and she went after his really complicated history against busing in America, vice president Biden, do you agree today? Do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America? Then do you agree are did not oppose busing in America? What I posed is bussing ordered by department of education. That's what I opposed. Why did not? Why did not have failure of states to into knowing public schools in America? I was part of the second class to integrate Berkeley, California, Public schools, almost two decades after Brown v board of education, because your city council made that decision was president. President that old government must. And that's why we need to pass the quality act. That's why we need to pass the Yarra because there are moments in history were states fail to preserve the civil rights of report from the version. You could see that Senator Harris was really having a moment this quickly became her night, you could feel the tenor of the night change. And I want to get into that moment with Kamla Harris because, like maryalice said the tone of room seem to change. And I've got ABC senior congressional correspondent Mary Bruce, who just spoke to comma, Harris. So I mean first of all, Mary did come Harris win that debate in these early debates with a stage where you are sharing the spotlight with nine other candidates to have one dominate as much as she did. It's a pretty unusual thing. But I did ask her that directly. You think do you think he won the night? I don't know. I'll leave that up to the. So what did you make of that moment, between her and Joe Biden? She took him to task and by making it personal. That's what makes it such a viral political buzzing moment, and they were ready for this, right? Just moments after she made these remarks for campaign on their social accounts were putting out this photo of hers, a young girl and actually caught up with some members of her family here in this room. And I said that, that was a pretty good play who was rummaging through the old family photos, and her sister, Maya who's awfully often with her on the campaign trail just sort of said to me with a huge smile. We're here to win. I disagree with him on the perspective that I think he has about who these segregationist were and the impact of their words and their work tonight. Do you think do you think he finally got that message? I, I hope so. I hope some if this was good for comma Harris was this night bad for Joe Biden. Joe Biden was forced to go on the defensive and it wasn't just this Kamla Harris moment on race. He was forced to defend his record on healthcare on. Emmigration and it's tough Joe Biden's affirmative, or he came into this debate with a giant target on his back. And he seemed to struggle, sometimes in figuring out how much of his time he wanted to devote to defending his record and how much you wanted to look ahead to the future. All right. Mary, Bruce tracking down the candidate who a lot of people say won the night to John. Thank you. Thanks. Brad. Okay. So the scrums are starting to form and Bernie Sanders is talking to people. Is your is your movements still growing, right? Oh, absolutely. It is. I think one of the reasons I'm pretty confident that we can win them accredit nomination is that we have a million more than a million volunteers. We bet the exactly. That was Bernie Sanders. We're back with maryalice parks now, because maryalice, I want to know what did you think of the other performances tonight? Bernie Sanders you've been covering for two years. What did you see? So I was actually pretty struck by Michael Bennett. The Senator from Colorado, that us tonight to make a forceful case against some of Senator Sanders policy physicians disagrees on his solution Medicare for all, you know, I have proposed getting into universal healthcare, which we need to do. It is a right healthcare is a right. We need to get to universal healthcare. I believe the way to do that is by finishing the work we started with ObamaCare and creating a public option that every family and every person America can make a choice. We haven't seen from Democrats in the past. They've tried in this race to kind of be nice to Senator Sanders and sort of avoid some of the questions. He'll been worried about alienating the far left and the party. If we turn toward socialism, we run the risk of helping to reelect the worst. President in American history actually him. And the other Colorado in the race governor Hickenlooper, both China lay out why they want to take more moderate position, they wanted to lay out why they think Senator Sanders is wrong who else stood out who else was relevant. I think that mayor Pete Buddha Jesuit. Did land a few striking lines. He had a pretty powerful answer on guns. More guns made a safer. We'd be the safest country on earth that doesn't work that way. And like he's them the past mayor also a mocked his feet. And I think when he does that he sounds really different than other Democrats. We should call out who pock rec- when we see it and for a party that associates itself with Christianity to say that it is okay to suggest that God would smile on the division of families at the hands of federal agents that God would condone putting children in cages has lost all claim to ever use religious language, again, vice president. To learn that on Twitter. You could see this spike in re tweets an action when he started talking about faith. I really resonated across a lot of the country. So overall then what did the last two nights? What did this whole idea of twenty candidates on stage together? What are we learned twice? Joe Biden, did something that candidates never do. He cut himself off the notion of denying people access to the ballot box. I agree that everybody wants day in five times though. And in some way, that was the theme of the two nights. You have these other candidates on stage that we're trying to really say that they were trying to say Joe Biden, it's nice we love him hand, but we think your time is up. It's time to move on. Maryalice parks Breen the analysis. Thanks so much. Thanks, brad. Next up on start here. Best case scenario a candidate can win four years at a time that supreme court might have just influenced the next decade. Better help offers licensed professional counselors specialized in a wide array of issues, like depression, anxiety, and grief. Connect with your professional counselor in a safe, private online environment. It's a truly affordable option and listeners can get ten percent off your first month by going to better help dot com slash here. Fill out a questionnaire to help them assess your needs and get matched with a counselor. You'll love when it comes to hiring. You don't have time to waste you need. Help getting to your shortlist of qualified candidates fast. That's why you need indeed dot com post job in minutes. Set up screener questions, then zero in unqualified candidates using an intuitive online dashboard. And when you need to hire fast, accelerate your results with sponsor jobs. New users can try for free at indeed dot com slash start here. That's indeed dot com slash start here. Terms, conditions, quality standards apply. Enormously consequential rulings and yesterday on the final day of its term, the supreme court delivered them. And yes, you're right. These usually sound like profoundly boring things how we write questions for the census. How we draw our congressional districts, but these will have huge immediate implications for our elections. No matter where you live, which is why our interns were asked to strap on running shoes instead of their normal dress shoes and sprint from the clerk's office with the decisions five, so it's Roberts Ginsburg Breyer. Sotomayor Kagan to liberals. God Br got Roberts to hold off on this citizenship question. ABC supreme court contributor, Kate Shaw, was right there for it. She's at the supreme court now. And so the justices did not issue a firm ruling on the census. They sent it back to a lower court, but they're supposed to print this thing in a couple of days. Right. So did they kill a citizenship question on the census for ten years if they dealt in a pretty serious blow? Did they kill it? Not. Totally clear. So they said that right now on the record that the census produced they can't go forward with, including this question since it's basically explained that it needed this question. So it could enforce the Voting Rights Act and the court took a look at the evidence and said, we don't think that's true. We don't think that's why you wanted to include the question. We're not saying you can't do it, but this record doesn't justify it. So, so right now, the question can't be included on the senses, but what the court leaves the door open to is maybe census going back and saying, okay, let's run another process. Let's provide a different explanation, and maybe we can still get a court to bless including this question on the census. But the question now is, is there time President Trump's already fighting back against the supreme court says decision tweeting from Japan? I have asked the lawyers, if they can delay the census, no matter how long until I think they need to go back to the drawing board and try to run a very accelerated process that comes to the same conclusion, but that will take time and the census forms have to be printed, very soon. So. Early on the administration said it needed to know if it could include this question to finalize the forms this weekend. Now there's some question, maybe they could extend it into the summer into the fall. So, so there's a possibility that, that there's a lot more activity inside census? And they try to do this using a different justification that stinging rebuke announced after Robert sided with his conservative colleagues ruling that federal courts, do not have the power to intervene and stop even the most extreme forms of partisan gerrymandering. So let's talk about gerrymandering because our own Devon Dwyer said yesterday that the supreme court does not love getting involved in how we draw districts. He said, they probably didn't want any part of this. They did exactly what he thought they might they rejected this case. So what does that mean for the way district's get drawn now? So Devon solely, right? The court has not wanted to Wade into policing partisan gerrymandering, but it has left the door open. So for years, the court has said, maybe really. Stream gerrymanders might violate the constitution but it's not totally clear where the line is and what the test should be. And so we'll kind of keep puzzling, it over and maybe a case will come before us, and we'll be able to set out a standard and a lot of people thought that these two cases were those cases in the court would finally announce when politics of goes too far and the court did not do that. Instead, the court's slam shut the door to any kind of judicial resolution of gerrymandering. They basically said, that's politics. This is law and law, basically, has nothing to say about when politics crosses the line to sort of to too much politics. So does that mean that this could go even further than does that mean what whatever we see now could become even even more, hyper partisan, you know, I, I think it definitely could. So look, gerrymandering isn't new. It's been going on for basically as long as the country's been around, but it has gotten a lot more blatant and a lot more effective in recent years. So computer programs now allow legislators to draw districts with real precision. So in one of the cases that was before the court out of North Carolina. You have a state, that's about fifty fifty democratic. And republican. And yet, the map at resulted in a congressional delegation that is ten three right? So you can see the distortion, and I think if anything the maps, and the map, drawing programs are getting better and better. So now that the court has said that the constitution places. No limits on gerrymandering. You know, I think that all bets are often we could see more and more extreme versions of gerrymandering probably starting right now. Big day at the supreme court Kate Shaw there for adult. Thanks so much. Thank you. Brad. Thank you very much, everybody. The great honor to be with President Putin right now. President Trump is out of Sokha, Japan. He made a lot of news overnight, this moment, see as he sat down for a one on one meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He was asked if he would tell Russia knocked to meddle in our elections. To hear him. That is the president playfully wagging. His finger at Putin's saying don't meddle in the election actually had harsher words when he was watching the democratic debates. President Trump posted a one word tweet about the debate warring and critics of the president have often said, hey Twitter, you ban users all the time, if they insult people's appearance or they repeat falsehoods, if you should ban the president, the president launched a personal attack on MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski and a pair of venomous tweets, calling her low IQ crazy Mika saying that she and co host Joe Scarborough came to visit him at mar-a-lago in December, and quote, you was bleeding badly. From a facelift, I said, no yesterday Twitter announce it was making changes that will impact the president, and that will impact the president and a lot of politicians directly. Laurie Segal is a longtime tech reporter who covers social media and Sulaiman. What would this rule do? Pretty big deal. Now, Twitter will star labelling tweets from government officials who they deemed the content violates onto policies. So if those tweets break rules against bullying or abusive behavior, so essentially, they won't delete these tweets, Mark them up. So the tweet will be hidden under a warning label. And, and this applies to verify government officials people have more than one hundred thousand followers or that check Mark, and what you'll see if, if one of the tweets violates this, you'll see almost almost looks like shadowed out will have a warning label that says Twitter rules about abusive behavior plight of this tweet. However, Twitter's determined it may be in the public's interest for the tweet to remains you actually have to go through some work to click on it to actually see the content, which is, I would say an having covered tech for many, many years. Twitter's always taken a certain stance of leaving the type of content for these types of officials up. This is a pretty big deal that Twitter. Actually taking the step in this direction. We'll sue. So this is kind of a compromise then. Right. I mean, what does that mean for social media companies, and if they're admitting yes, certain people are above the rules are rules that we've created look, I, I think it's a big deal for as long as I've covered technology. Aiding Twitter, especially has considered itself this free, speech platform on, you know, and I think, you know, for companies like Facebook they've dealt with these types of issues, especially when it comes to world leaders in they face these types of this type of criticism. So this is certainly a step, and I think this is going to change the game of it because in this particular instance, I think Twitter is gonna make it harder for these types of tweets to spread their changing the algorithm. That's part of this announcement, and they're gonna make it harder three to search for these types of tweets. So this could fundamentally change the way that, you know, these types of politicians can communicate in at, you know, I'm I, I can imagine we would hear from President Trump on this, and I think you'll also hear a lot of criticisms conservative. Even get a fair shot. They don't even give you the benefit of the doubt. Criticism from Republicans against Silicon Valley. We've heard that backlash there's been Silicon Valley. It's been accused many times of having an anti-conservative by your statement, after the meeting, he spoke founder, Mark Zuckerberg said Republicans have always been an important part of Facebook, and that he understands many conservatives don't trust that there isn't a political bias on Facebook. So I think you'll hear that as part of this narrative, but this is certainly a step because I think Silicon Valley has struggled with how to handle a lot of these nuance issues when it comes to free speech. What should be allowed to stay on the platform? Especially when it comes to these world leaders actually admitting there is a gray area. This is stuff that we don't like being on our platform, but it's also very, very news worthy valuable for people to know about Laurie Segal valuable to have you on with us. Thanks so much. Thank you. Molesting today. You're about to see the most intimidated event of the World Cup. And we're not actually close to the final, yet the United States is the favourite to win this tournament. But they're dealing with a bunch of challenges today. One by luck of the draw. They're playing grabs. The second best team in the field. France to France happens to be hosting the tournament this game will be in Paris, it sold out before it was even confirm these two teams would face off, so lots of French fans screaming in your face, and three Europe is in the middle of historically, nasty heatwave. We're talking hundred six degrees earlier this week. And if all that wasn't enough that he has been rising on this team star Meghan repeated who said. She would not visit the White House, if they won president is in her biggest fan now Trump tweeting, I am a big fan of the American team and women's soccer, but Meghan should win. I before she talks finished the job. She sits apologize for cursing. My mom will be very upset about that. But it's an awful lot of pressure for a team that normally doesn't get caught. Sweating. It's a really good suffering from fivethirtyeight, who's using data to track the winners and losers of these debates. You can check that out on the fivethirtyeight politics podcast today. Start here is produced by David Rhind. Josh Cohen, Tara, Gonville, Kelly Tarez, and Lauren Ephron, thanks to Elizabeth Russo Jeffords, Gerald aid villas and station. She skew special. Thanks this week to recline. Rake, proft Kevin rider and a great team has been here in Miami. I'm Brad milkey? See him under. Are you hiring with indeed? You can post a job in minutes. Set up screener questions, then zero in on your shortlist of qualified candidates using an online dashboard. Get started today at indeed dot com slash start here. That's indeed dot com slash start here.

president Joe Biden Brad milkey Senator Bernie Sanders President Trump vice president Twitter supreme court America Senator Harris President Putin ABC California United States Miami Mary Bruce Kate Shaw Roberts Ginsburg Breyer Senator Harris Lancet political director
America's Next Top (Coronavirus) Model

Start Here

24:28 min | 3 months ago

America's Next Top (Coronavirus) Model

"It's Thursday may seventh if you're not using the national guidelines and which ones are you using we start here is more states loosened restrictions analyst harassing. How bad could this get again? Second wave might come city by city the same way they came in the first wave. We're talking to President Trump's former homeland security adviser a shooting. Georgia was already prompting outrage. Then we all saw the video the son who is still holding the gun fires almost in Aubry's face the shocking footage that's being compared to a modern day lynching and when college students finally go back to school the sexual assault policies might have changed if an alleged sexual assault happens in an apartment. It's off campus. It's not actually within the schools jurisdiction the big revisions to title nine and who the meant to protect from ABC News. This is start here Brad milking so I am an er nurse here in Florence Alabama. And this is Rachel Polka. She's a nurse and we would start our mornings by getting on a bus at five forty five but for the last several weeks she deployed to New York City and what she saw there. She says changed her. If they very Disheartening to walk through To just watch people continue to die over and over and over again. Multiple Times a day Have to face time families to give them something because the alternative is nothing about seventy thousand Americans have now died from Cova nineteen. She says every day she saw some of the old young but there were signs of hope as well. Though you're very horse after intimation and the patient just looks at me and says hi and I started crying and the patient started crying and I said hi back and we just cried together for a while. Because we didn't know that this would happen. She's back in Alabama now. New York's cases are down and someone New Jersey's Colorado's Arkansas Montana. In fact Montana is opening up some schools to this applies clorox wipes enhance energizer. I have in here at the moment. And my visual in my six visual for distancing thinking that a map of the country just think of every state in terms of up or down corona virus cases are rising or they're falling and can about ten states. They're falling the growing in the right direction but in about twenty states almost half the country the rising as of this morning thirty nine states the vast majority have reduced their restrictions and Texas today. More than a thousand new cases as more shops like hair salons set to open this weekend. Some like this bar owner defying orders arrested for opening early. I will lose my business. My bartenders are already starving to death. Who's just this clear sense in many areas that we simply gotta move on our country could handle lockdowns for a month or two but no more coincidentally or not three more states are lifting restrictions tomorrow on the same day. This disastrous unemployment rate is about to be posted. This aren't hard to imagine how much pressure they will be on leaders to send more people back to work. But what does that mean for People's health? What does that mean for? Nurses like Rachel say in a month. Will she have more cases to treat or less? It's to Tom Bossert. He's the former homeland security adviser for president trump. He's now contributed for ABC News. And Tom I'm glad you're here. Because yesterday we heard from the president himself speaking of David Muir and he admitted more people could die because of these reopenings but he seemed to be doing. This cost benefit analysis. That this would be worth it at this point. We've seen model showing one hundred thousand one hundred thirty thousand two hundred thousand. What scenario makes the most sense to you right now? So the idea of the confusion comes from those models all taking different assumptions. And I think I take some solace from where I see these models ending up and that is to say that. I'm seeing a convergence of the mathematical projections. I've been relying upon and the models as they get better more recently and what they're saying to me is that the first phase is still ongoing. We took note of two graphs from the New York Times. Showing how threat is now shifting this one showing a number of cases each day appearing to plateau and then start to come down but look what happens when you take out the area around New York City the Arc keeps going up indicating that this is now moving across the country into other areas. The first phase is going to be a tragic phase terrible outcome toll now. Rising above seventy two thousand lives of anywhere from sixty to ninety thousand deaths in the United States by the end of summer perhaps as high as one hundred thousand and a Lotta. The models seem to be reinforcing that same projection. Now that's a bad outcome. But it's not quite as bad as we had projected in the past so there are some positive development there and and there's some other dynamics here but remember that's a first wave that doesn't mean second way for that. That's kind of what I'm saying these models shift because it does seem like there are sort of actions that would either limit these deaths or extend these deaths. 'cause it can't look one hundred thousand that's that ended up. Being the answer like Americans actions will determine that right certainly so. I always try to avoid predictions and projections. Because you know how do you know what will happen in the future but what I like to do is explained that it is not unusual or unforeseen for the first wave as it progresses through our country to produce the results that we expect it to produce? And that would be that sixty ninety upwards of one hundred thousand deaths. Now that's tragic but that means that the second thing we have to do is look for microanalysis. We're reporting our highest number of cases by a significant amount. It's six hundred and twenty-five new cases but the way that breaks down is three hundred and nine of those new cases are from Green River Correctional Facility. We Wanna be hyper vigilant now to look for one or two or three new cases in any town or city or in some nursing home or jail somewhere very bad for that jail in the populace of people in it or that nursing home and the people there. But it's really good for the populace if you see three or four or five cases instead of being contained a one facility being reported throughout a whole city that can indicate that. There's a lot more sickness in that city. Might see a second wave. That's the part that I have to explain. Second waves might come city by city the same way they came in the first wave and the first wave as a macro across the country is still petering. Out An ongoing. It's clearly no good for that nursing home or for that prison population right so I guess my question is how would a governor a mayor even know when it is getting out of control like like Florida right. Almost thirty percent of their Cova desk have come in the last week and a half and yet they are still opening up certain sectors numbers. That would actually tell one of these leaders. No we have to start over. We had to START SEAN STUFF DOWN AGAIN. So this is a shared responsibility but remember that shared responsibility starts with a floor and a ceiling. The floor are these these gating criteria you go into phase one if you get. Novi bound and you satisfied negating but yet again a second time. The first gate is a public health objective right. It's tell us how many cases there are and that you've seen a trend of reduction over a period of time. That's reliable so once you don't see new cases for a period of time preferably two weeks then you've met the first gate you get to the second gate. You have enough hospital capacity. Should there be an uptick or should it be a return to the regular normal load on healthcare system. So you had to be on your way down that roller coaster and below the line. Those are the first two gates six hundred new cases that walked in the door yesterday week before that we still still so one thousand new cases every day. Where are those new cases still coming from the third gates the important one and that is what I'm talking about when I say a detection methodology and a way of isolating those that seem sick or might be sick or are confirmed to be sick from the rest of us that are still susceptible? But once you get past those three minimal getting criterion you then get into. How do we return to normal? But the states aren't going getting not necessarily like they're moving on regardless people are protesting regardless so that leads to the other question. I wanted to ask you Tom. It's about buying right. How much do you need people to keep these death tolls to their expected limits? Now because I I think it's clear at this point you're not going to have one hundred percent of people in a town wearing masks where you live absolutely. I'm on a campaign. Tell people for the ten percent. Here's what I mean by. Keep everybody saying we gotta do is not too much to ask them DEMOC. Just put it on pretty consistently see polls now that come back with a pretty reliable sixty. Five percent of of the country would be very very skeptical about returning to large events like baseball games. Football Games stuff like that. We're seeing sixty five. Percents seemed to come back with answers consistent with a basic understanding of this virus. The other thirty five percent vary. That's BS at. It's everybody's making a big hype over. I don't think there's anything to worry about. Some of them are protesting the disease. Itself saying it's a hoax. It doesn't kill anyone. It's not contagious. This is an overreaction. I can't do much to persuade somebody. That's under that misunderstanding today. Hundreds of protesters were at the Massachusetts State House calling for an end to restrictions state where the outbreak is still at its peak than others are protesting the orders and they're really protesting their principles and their rights. They don't want someone to tell them they can't do this or that. The governor now calling for the release of a Dallas Salon owner. We Luther who was jailed for opening her salon two weeks ago. Were getting fed please. Though that's not the same as saying that I demand my right to go to church and then I'm going to go do it and sit in crowded puke. It may be mandatory. But not everyone is messed up and finds could be hard to enforce. There are a lot of people. Don't have on. What do you think about that? Well it's starting to stay away from me. And once we have seventy five percent of the population they'll do what's right independent of bad governor or a questionable Maher or a shady entrepreneur. The Imperial College study from Neil Ferguson. In the beginning of this whole outbreak told us. That's a pretty good way to keep this contained seventy five percent. That is the number that Tom. Bossard is working towards telling one person at a time at Tom. Thank you so much for being with us. Thank you Brad on star here. It sounded like an accident until they watch the guy take aim and fire. Let's take a break to talk about red box. Red Box has top entertainment when you need it. Most with the situation in the world changing every day one thing remains the same or love for movies movies. Not only entertain. They also give something to connect over so watch one of the latest action thrillers. With the biggest stars or tigger rewind with a classic. The whole family will enjoy whether it's a movie night or a movie. Whenever connection is everything now more than ever visit red box dot com for all the ways to watch no a right now the idea of going out for a jog is baseline right. It's like the least you can do to stay in shape or just to stay sane will in Georgia. A young man recently went out for a jog and never came home. One of the one of rough there will stop when they're not gonNA stop rupp instead. He was shot dead by two strangers. In broad daylight this happened back in February but then it was portrayed as a tragic accident. Now there's video and it is disturbing from a moving car. You see this young black man jogging. The road passed a pickup truck. Standing in the bed of that truck is a white man with a long gun. Advocates are saying what happened. Next was nothing short of a modern day lynching. Abc Steve Ocean. Samis in Georgia right now and I had to stop this video a couple times just because it was so disturbing so before. We talk about the controversy. Can you just walk us through the video itself? So by the time we see the video There was already some sort of chase the two men in the truck according to the police report their names Gregory and Travis McMichael Gregory's father Travis is. The son is a data driven. The truck around the street chasing twenty-five-year-old Ahmad Aubrey. He's the job. The father and son believed that are bree. Was the person responsible for a number of break INS in the neighborhood. So they went after him. You see Aubrey run towards the truck and he then gets into some little scuffle off camera with the son who's carrying what looks like a shotgun and the son who is still holding the gun. Fires almost aubry's face he then continues to jog for just a few more steps and then stumbles to the ground. He falls to the ground in he dies at the scene. You see the father. He's in the truck. He kind of grabs his gun and gets out. And you know this is before the video came out. They tell police that they were trying to make a citizen's arrest that he fought with the sun and that they shot him in self defense and that story held for forbid but now of course. There's this video you guys have heard this idea that he was mistaken for someone else who they supposedly on video that. So asked to now when you think about how many is you know. Run were shots and a t shirt and nothing else. No bag no burglary tools. So what happens next because Christ seems to go beyond even just the shooting itself. The outcry is over the fact that no one has been arrested and the reason why that appears to be the case is because one of the two people involved in the story. The father who was inside the truck is a former investigator for the local district attorney and a former police officer for a second District Attorney. Both of whom had to recuse themselves from this case. Not Now a third district attorney is handling this case. That third district attorney says that he's seen enough evidence to order this being presented to a grand jury which he says is going to happen. They have ocular proof. They have a video that shows the murder of Amman. Aubrey they have that video. Black people have been arrested on so far less. The problem is because the courts are still closed in Georgia. That won't happen until the middle of June at the earliest after video surfaced of people running and ducking from gunfire out lease issued a statement saying the victim. Was the shooter the point. I maybe would like to underline is you. And I've talked probably six or seven times in the past year or two about cases like this one. And in every instance the initial story that you hear less than twenty four hours later. Police retracted that statement is often significantly different than the video. That comes out later. Had He not been a young black man in America living today and that appears to be the case in this incident yet again and we talked about the dangers of protesting this drip drip of information. This delay in prosecution actually prompted protesters out into the streets in Georgia. Even Lebron James was tweeting. Sba about the saying. We're literally hunted every day. Every time we step foot outside Steve SOM- ATLANTA. Thank you. Thank you most. Colleges are closed right now but yesterday the secretary of Education Betsy Devos came out with new guidelines really could have a profound impact on college students whenever they do return today. We take historic action on title nine because we must all had to do with the scourge of sexual assault on campus. These new guidelines have been years in the making and now they appear perhaps to take steps that might even protect alleged perpetrators can ABC news legal analyst. Kate Shaw with Kate. What are the changes here? Also Brad maybe I'll take a step back actually explain a little bit sort of where these regulations come from title. Nine is a law that people might have heard of in the context of college sports. Because it's a law that says that basically colleges and educational institutions can't discriminate on the basis of sex and so one of the things that led to was funding for women's sports but it has also been understood to create an obligation on the part of schools to try to root out sexual harassment misconduct and sexual assault. We sent every school district college and university that Receives Federal Funding. New instructions clarify their legal obligations to prevent and respond to sexual assault. The Obama era guidance was quite protective of sexual assault victims. And what these new regulations do is essentially shift the balance in favor of strong procedural protections for those accused of sexual misconduct even sexual assault the fair and effective way to do this is for each person to tell their side of the story. An answer probing questions so institutions of higher education must hold a live hearing where advisers conduct cross examination of course victims advocates are quite concerned that what these changes do is to protect the accused at the expense of accusers. Right victims of sexual assault. It really feels like a slap in the face to have betsy. Devos giving equal time to accuse students and survivors Pretending as if the rate of falsely accused people is so high. When it's really not the also limit the kinds of accusations that schools need to really pursue so for example if an alleged sexual assault happens in an apartment. That's off campus. It's not actually within the schools jurisdiction. These regulations say the schools. Don't have to investigate those kinds of events. Where under the Obama era guidance in fact they did healy rile says I you found her alleged rapist. Not Responsible Despite rape kit evidence at an off campus fraternity party recruiting event situation And I was sexually assaulted. The regulations also pretty narrowly defined the kinds of sexual misconduct that require investigations so really just sexual assault domestic violence stalking dating violence. For the first time ever title nine codifies into law sexual harassment as the discrimination. It is but kind of general sexual harassment and misconduct. Broadly actually don't seem to fall within the terms of this regulation and that too is essentially a narrowing of the kinds of conduct that schools are required to go after so so the question is why kate because law enforcement still says here even in twenty twenty. It's much more likely that a young woman or young man stay silent about their sexual assault than it is that they would make something up right so so why this restrictive language here in. I think there's no question right under reporting is a much more serious problem than false accusations. But the trump administration has seemed interested in taking a law and order approach Even in the context of campus sexual assault allegations. We can continue to combat sexual misconduct without abandoning our core values of fairness presumption of innocence and due process. And I think that just it's it's a real break in priorities from the Obama Administration approach which was campus sexual assault allegations presented distinct kinds of us and we can address those in ways. That don't necessarily track kinds of sort of process you would get in a normal criminal courtroom right outside of a college campus so I think what this move represents. Brad is a decision to privilege the idea of due process and the rights of those accused of misconduct or even of crimes. Even if that sometimes means doing so at the expense of victims one other thing I find interesting here Brad is at. These regulations are set to go into effect in August which may be when students are beginning to return to college campuses. After nearly six months away and schools will likely be trying to figure out the new normal wherever we all are in this pandemic so trying to implement this complex new system of rules including I should say a new requirement of live hearings right people in a room together. Under some circumstances you know is maybe a questionable use of institutional resources at what is obviously going to be a challenging time for administrators and students alike in everything to do with title nine always plays over years and years. I mean it. It took the trump administration. Three years to enact. This guidance will have an impact on college students for years to come Kate. Shaw thank you so much. Thank you brad last thing. Healthcare workers are undoubtedly some of the biggest heroes in this pandemic fight. But it's possible. Some of our biggest strides could be taken by some Labrador retrievers and Allama named winter. Were starting to look at if dogs and attacked an odor associated with Kobe. Nineteen but as Cynthia auto from the University of Pennsylvania she leads it's Penn vets working dog center and she says yeah. This could really work. It might be. The company wants to bring their workers back but they don't want to bring back anybody that might be positive so we might have them walk by the dog and the dog with let us know if there was somebody that was positive becoming. How accurate could a dog smell? Test actually be. Oh she says that's already happening. Diseases have distinct. Smells and dogs can already sniff out. Malaria in certain cancers we can smell in parts per million for dogs. We're talking parts per billion machines can't smell as well as they can put it like this. Imagine being able to read a billboard from a couple of miles away now imagine reading it from a thousand miles away. That is the difference between our noses and dogs. Meanwhile Llamas yes. While most Michael Bikita Corona virus treatment always talking about antibodies can defend. You will llamas have antibodies that can keep certain viruses from invading. This Belgian Lama named winter was injected with some of these so called SPIKE PROTEINS. The ones that invade researchers say who blood responded beautifully in a new paper. They think these. Antibodies could be harnessed for treatment. The crazy thing is that experiment began back in two thousand sixteen when scientists were dealing with SARS winter. The Lama might have been saving us before we even needed saving hardcore than rescuing Timmy. Down the well. This is impressive. Stuff start here tomorrow. Help us out with a rating and review. It really does make a difference in helping others find us and hey we could all use some good information right now in the Red Sea tomorrow The country is locked down. Battling Corona virus. How flattening the curve have my gloves in my pocket. Which I'm not sure how effective they'll believe going to wear them anyway. We WanNA help and give you the latest information. I'm Aaron Katersky host of Kobe. Nineteen what you need to know a podcast from. Abc News but we're going to need to do is widespread testing to see who's susceptible who's infected and who's recovered each weekday. We call doctors from around the country and our own medical experts to respond directly to. What's on your mind about this virus? Covert nineteen what you need to know a new series weekday afternoons on your favorite podcast APP.

assault Brad Georgia New York City ABC News president Rachel Polka Cova Kate Shaw Aubry Ahmad Aubrey Tom analyst Alabama New York Times harassment Abc Florence Alabama United States clorox
The Firing That Took Five Years

Start Here

24:47 min | 1 year ago

The Firing That Took Five Years

"It's tuesday august twentieth. How long would a firing take at your job. We start here five years. After i can't breathe breathe became a rallying cry the cop the center of it is finally fired and if i was still a cop i'd probably be mad at me. Some say it should be sitting in prison other say he should still beyond the force where the conversation about policing is edited planned parenthood says we don't want your money. It can stop providing abortions and abortion referrals or can stop taking titled ten funds the gag rule the refusing to heed and we're that puts millions of american women and the most fired up tweets you saw about the hong kong protests well you start with those came from so it really really now into into the space of a cat and mouse game. Russia is not the only guest at this party what facebook and twitter are doing about government-sponsored trolling from a._b._c. the news this is start here. I brad milkey. Are you hiring with indeed. You can post a job in minutes set up screener screener questions then zero in on your shortlist of qualified candidates using an online dashboard get started today at indeed dot com slash start here. That's indeed indeed dot com slash start here. It's been five years since eric. Garner was killed because he would just say he came in in july. Two thousand fourteen in new york city staten island when eric garner was accused by this plainclothes police officer of selling lucy's loose cigarettes untaxed eyewitnesses said the only reason anyone noticed gardner was because he just broken up a fight anything in five years ago. Remember body cams are not a thing. This is really just as taking video with your smartphone. Phone is becoming ubiquitous so this is one of the first times american see something seemingly minor cop spiral out of control officers cuffed gardner garner jerks his hand away officer puts his arm around garner's throat they stumble forward than backward from they fall to the ground eric. Garner corners starts gasping. I can't breathe. I and his other cops begin to cuff him. First officer keeps his arm around. Garner's neck eventually press his his head into the pavement. Garner repeats that phrase. I can't breathe eleven times before he loses consciousness and dies but officer's name his daniel pantaleo and for the last five years he still had a job with the new york city police department that ended yesterday a._b._c. senior investigative reporter aaron katersky is here. He covers new york law enforcement so erin i mean why did this take five years to the side. There were so many different investigative steps that had to be taken before the n._y._p._d. Could initiate its own discipline. I the staten island district attorney declined to bring criminal charges against officer pantaleo then the feds took a look look and for a number of years the department was asked to hold off on any discipline or or even getting in the way of maybe federal investigators in this went went back and forth and there was a real reluctance on the part of the justice department to bring federal civil rights charges under both administrations but it was finally left of the attorney general william bar to say. I know that was just last month. He has not been brought to justice that police officers should be off the street and right after that the mayor of the city of new york bill blasios said well now new york can enact consider justice. You know why because for the first time we are not waiting on the federal justice department good afternoon everyone today. I'm here to announce my decision in a disciplinary case of police officer daniel pantaleo and so the disciplinary process at the n._y._p._d. Finally ended not long ago with a departmental judge finding daniel pantaleo reckless in using chokehold against against garner during the arrest although not with intent examine the totality of the circumstances and relied on the facts. I stand before you today confident i did. I have reached the correct decision on the less recommending the fired and that's the action that the police commissioner affirmed on monday but wait pantaleo and police reps have said again again. This was not even an illegal choke hold. The administrative court said he was untruthful during the investigation was that in there is worse than the actual to- cold not really it was permissible initially because as you describe bread pantaleo garner are wrestling at one point pantaleo slammed against a shopkeepers wall refused to cooperate with the arrest to comply with lawful orders the video also makes clear that offer officer pantaleo original joel efforts to take mr garner into custody for appropriate and that and as he tries to maintain his balance and control over eric garner he puts him in a chokehold but what happened next next is the matter we must address. The patrol officers guide says once you're on the ground that kind of potentially lethal force force has to end and for those few seconds officer pantaleo maintained grip on eric garner's yet didn't kill him directly but it contributed to an asthma attack that the medical examiner's office <unk> said did and that is where the departmental judge and the police commissioner found officer pantaleo to be reckless. I've been a cop a long time and if i were still a cop i probably be mad at me. I wouldn't not looking. I wanna talk about the commissioner for a second because he said again and again in his press conference. He is a former beat cop. He rose through these ranks and i almost got confused listening to him 'cause does does he think pantaleo should still be a cop or not. I mean he's really sympathetic to him. He said police officers make those split-second decisions. All the time and some of those decisions are life. Indepth and penalize union is calling for a vote of no confidence now in commissioner. O.'neil is a saying within the police department. That's been bantered around for some time. That said the job is dead. In reality to job has been dying and today the job is dead godless. However you came to your decision. You finally made a decision. That should have been made five years ago. Though eric garner's family thanked the commissioner for doing in what they called the right thing instead they'd keep pushing for a federal law to ban police officers across the country from using chokehold. I lost my son. You cannot replace that you can get another job. Maybe at burger king okay so it's really interesting timing because on the same day yesterday california's governor signed this new law that basically makes it illegal for police officer to use deadly force unless it's objectively reasonable. You have no other options your taser your you're de escalation. Tactics are all played out so on one side. You got black lives matter saying we need to reevaluate how much authority to give cops on the street to begin with and then the police benevolent association in new york saying this guy should not have even been fired. Let alone prosecuted aaron katersky. Thanks a lot thank you brad once ago. The trump administration instituted these new rules for health groups that take federal dollars they they said if you're one of these groups you send this letter promising to comply with these new rules would that deadline was yesterday and yesterday planned parenthood said we're not signing signing that letter nonprofit made the move rather than comply with what it calls the new trump administration gag rule this has set off a scramble within the abortion rights movement and an urgent conversation about the federal guidelines known as titled ten a._b._c.'s legal contributor. Kate shaw joins us now. It's okay to me what exactly is planned parenthood saying no to zoo here so at issue here is titled ten which is part of a law that's been in effect since one thousand nine hundred seventy and it basically gives federal money for family planning services which includes contraception for low income women the idea here is just that low income women need to be able to access the same sorts of reproductive healthcare that women with money have long been able to access but from from the beginning titled ten is also prohibited the use of this money for abortion and abortion related services so it's totally clear you can't use title ten money to actually perform abortions ends but what about referring a patient to another location that will provide abortions is data okay and that's something that the federal government has taken different positions on over the ears so the trump administration is basically saying you know someone comes into your office. They want to hear about their options. You're not allowed to mention abortion or list that as an option for them right so the trump administration has basically put out a rule that says you can't council women about the availability of abortion you can't refer them to other facilities that provide abortions and you actually have to create separate facilities so if a title ten recipient like planned parenthood wants to perform abortions it can't do them in the same place as it provides it's titled ten services and these ten services are totally unrelated to abortion. They include counseling. They include contraception included. Sti testing and treatment and planned parenthood has basically said it has two choices it can stop providing abortions and abortion referrals or can stop taking titled ten funds yesterday it announced. It's going to stop taking titled ten funds altogether. These harmful attacks are tools for oppression and make no mistake it is the poorest the sickest and the most disadvantaged manage who will suffer the most so what does that mean for planned parenthood than what does that mean for for the women that use planned parenthood planned parenthood will now receive something like sixteen million dollars less each year ear of federal money and that's going to have ramifications for low income women who have relied upon planned parenthood for contraceptive coverage for sti testing and treatment and now planned parenthood will try to make some of these gaps. Some states may be able to step up into ride more funding. I'm sure they will do fundraising but it's almost certainly going to mean less care here provided <hes> not even abortion care less care that is not at all abortion care to low income women and in some states planned parenthood has been the only provider of title all ten services <hes> so unless there's some change planned parenthood succeeds in some future court challenge or the administration changes. It's policy. It's going to mean these. Women are going to have less access to reproductive health care in the trump administration said hold on this is essentially a political play by planned parenthood here because they've known about this rule change for months. They said nothing now the turnaround and make it sound really urgent in the meantime though it's worth noting just yesterday on this deadline day the f._b._i. Arrested a managed chicago for threatening to attack an abortion clinic. Kate shaw also that editor of a new book called reproductive rights and justice stories kate. Thanks so much. Thank you brad excellent start here. You know the drill mass shooting no new laws blah blah blah but this time washington insiders are saying wait. Something might be happening. There's nothing like a night of good sleep to avoid those groggy mornings if you're struggling to get a good night's sleep you've got to try purple mattress. The purple mattress will probably feel different than anything you've ever experienced because it uses this brand new material that was developed an actual actual rocket scientist. It's not like the memory foam you're used to and now listeners will get a free purple pillow with the purchase of a mattress just text a._b._c. to eighty four four eight eight eight. The only way to get a free pillow is to text a._b._c. Two eight four eight eight message and data rates may apply tied down at work. Don't let your search for software. Kill though some revives ditch the office overtime and find options for your business in minutes with capterra read hundreds and thousands of reviews and make finding the the right software a breeze at capterra dot com slash start here with over nine hundred fifty thousand reviews of products from real software users discover for everything that you need to make an informed decision with over seven hundred specific categories of software capterra makes it easy to discover the right solution fast find more than one option in your search you can use capterra product comparison to see details side-by-side visit capterra dot com slash start here for free today a day to find the tools to make an informed software decision for your business capterra dot com slash start here capterra. That's c. A. p. t. e. <music> r. a. dot com slash start here capterra software selection simplified <music> certainly in the show we talked briefly about legislation about police officers and guns while many americans arkansas's still wondering what about the rest of us in the days after shootings in el paso texas in dayton ohio and others president trump signaled he was not about to institute bans on guns guns anytime soon but he's inner circle was reportedly serious about new background. Check laws yesterday. The president cast doubt on that as well. We've got a._b._c.'s katherine. Katherine faulders who covers washington so catherine congress is out of town right now. Is there pressure on anyone to actually do anything yeah. It's a good question brad and if you remember it was eleven days ago that the president spoke to reporters and called for meaningful background checks background checks. We have been to support report for really commonsense sensible important background check. There is a lot of pressure on the president and there's a lot of pressure from members of congress. I remember through all types of roles as a young child roving up and i know that there's probably some in the audience that days even though congress is on a five week recess brad we have seen republicans begins at town halls being approached by some of their constituents woodthorpe so for example jimmy ernst asking the what they're going to do about gun legislation when they get back to washington talking about how we all is it democrats called on mitch mcconnell to come back for this for this urgent matter to bring this legislation gun legislation to the floor. The question is will the appetite be there when they come back and as many people we've talked to in the white house and on the hill say if they don't do something by september brad then this probably isn't going anywhere you know congress hasn't passed any sweeping gun reform legislation since the nineteen nineties when we keep hearing from our reporters on the hill that you're not going to see major movement here from republicans without direct pressure from the president so i mean where does president trump actually stand catherine. Do we know so. We knew that the president has brought up background checks a number of times that now he seems to be backing away from people don't realize we have very strong background checks right. Now you go into buy a gun. You have to sign up there. A lot of background checks that have been approved over the years. We've also heard him talk about mental health that we need to take take these weapons out of the hands of of people who have mental health issues. It's the people that pull the trigger the gun that pulls the trigger but brad the bottom line is that there's a lot of forces at play here. The president has been on the phone with the n._r._a.'s wayne lapierre so he's being lobbied by by the national channel rifle association. He has mitch mcconnell in the senate who said he would also entertained some legislation around a red flag laws and i think you you see the president genuinely wanting to do something about this but is being lobbied and pulled by all sorts of different outside forces that it's just unclear a what congress really has an appetite for if you wanna solve an address these challenges listen to the people who who understand it <hes> perhaps in some always better than anybody else so brad. This has also been front and center on the trail for democrats. We see children bringing it up. At different campaign events we see democrats. What's making this a central issue to their campaign. I've got to get rid of the filibuster and we're gonna pass some serious gone legislation and the trump campaign is also thinking about this in the wake of these two awful shootings in texas and ohio. They're actually a gathering data about how these issues play with with the president's base. Now we don't know the results of that data that they're collecting but we do know that they are are trying to see how this plays bass in what they prefer whether it's <hes> background checks or or mental health issues in adviser kellyanne conway kinda backed backed up the president's calls for doing something on mental health red flag laws but also made it a point to say no one's gun should ever be taken away without due process then on the other side of the aisle. You got confusion fusion as a lot of candidates call for an assault weapons ban but they still disagree on whether they want to buy back. All the assault style rifles still out there so catherine lots of complications. We'll talk to you later later. Thanks brad this weekend's massive protests in hong cong. Everything has remained relatively quiet. At least that's what it looks like on the streets no matter how government polarize us how how the government threaten us and we are determined to fight for what believe is correct but yesterday twitter and facebook revealed at the volume has actually been rising in some cases thanks to the chinese government online each company put out statements saying they shut down hundreds of fraudulent accounts that all seem to be coming from the chinese mainland which is weird considering considering twitter and facebook are illegal for the average person to use their. Let's bring in ben nimmo. He's digital investigator with the firm graphic in the u._k. And so ben what our facebook booking twitter saying happened in hong kong what we've had is both platform saying <hes> variations on the theme that they have found people who are linked to the chinese government want a who've got caught running troll campaigns against the hong kong protesters <hes> posting content saying that the protesters are cockroaches that that evil people <hes> they'll the darkness standing in the way of the light of the people's revolution <hes> they find it particularly on twitter where there were almost the size and very active accounts taken down and then over two hundred thousand accounts <hes> wh- blocked proactively as they were registered on the no small number of accounts on facebook doing the same thing but what's really eighty striking is that you've actually had the platforms calling this direct saying that this was state backpack conducted by people who are linked to the government so you have the platforms actually pointing the finger where this came from you. I was gonna say why is that so significant the fact that they're saying this is the chinese government here that does sort of crosses a new threshold for them. It's not the first time that the platforms have cool people linked to governments running operations of so for example facebook took down <hes> an operation being run by people linked to the saudi you go from a few weeks back but it also shows that the platforms themselves getting more assertive in calling out this kind of behavior facebook says it removed more than three billion fake accounts from october of two thousand eighteen through march of this year with two point two billion of those occurring in the first three months of two thousand nineteen have seen an accelerated drumbeat beat all of take downs. That's what i was going to try to figure out what's because in the u._s. We saw issues with russian disinformation of course in the run-up to two thousand sixteen and one of the big questions was our facebook and and twitter up to the challenge even combat like do they get it. You seem to be saying yes. They do absolutely and you need to compare what happened back in in two thousand fifteen sixteen with what's happening now we're in saint petersburg russia trying to get inside a building known as the troll factory alan sky of told an independent liberal russian t._v. station. He worked in the unit that specifically targeted america so in two thousand fifteen famously the the russian troll farm created a twitter quitter account which it said was the unofficial account of the republican party in tennessee and it was registered to a russian mobile phone number one minute. He said you needed to be a redneck from kentucky and and then later you had to be some kind of white dude from minnesota and then in fifteen minutes you need to be from new york writing something in black slang and that kind of lost it for a year and a half it built up well over one hundred thousand followers tonight facebook once again upping the number of people who saw that russian linked content during the election to one hundred fifteen million lina americans including their instagram platform. That's not the kind of thing which is going to be happening these days. You've got the platforms actively going hunting. Dan this kind of operation and what that what that's done is its forced that bad actors some of them a state actors. Some of them are commercial. Some of them pay to be ideological groups but then having to try. Try much harder to hide. One of the interesting things with the twitter announcement on the chinese takedown is they say that a lot of these cancel being run through food through through proxy internet accounts in different countries. They weren't apparently coming straight from mainland china but some of them were coming from unblock i._p. Addresses on the chinese mainland genie's out of the bottle title. We have to get used to the fact that this is going to be the new normal so it really now into into the space of account mass game where you're going to see more attempts at information operations when you're going to see more people trying to catch them which makes you wonder right if disinformation campaign start to migrate away from the twitter facebook onto these other platforms that are less populated but also maybe less police ben nimmo from graphic shedding light on some dark corners the internet this morning thank you. Thanks very much and one last thing. Where do you keep your thermostat. In the summer like around the house seventy three degrees <hes> <hes> probably like seventy what actual numbers you give me an actual around seventy two am asking because recently consumer reports did some tests on energy efficient air conditioners like do they said they went by federal guidelines from energy star and those guidelines say minimum. You should be keeping your house at seventy eight degrees that is too hot right yeah that that is not comfortable. Apparently this has been the official line of the u._s. Government for a while l. Now keep it seventy eight degrees when you're inside eighty five when you're gone and eighty two degrees fahrenheit when you're sleeping well. I walked around manhattan an eighty a two degree day. I could not find one person just sleeping with that window open so i went to a guy who works in a ninety five degree box all day. A food cart worker across the street from our offices told us it should be seventy eight seventy nine degrees away at seventy seventy seventy five. It's okay is he even he can't handle handle this leading many to wonder who came up with these guidelines anyway seventy eight oh good i hope they're not the flesh is not cooking then. That's really hot. That's really that's you know. It's new york in august in new york. It's that's insane at twitter lit up over this one response that this might be a recipe for smelling unlike onions. The energy department says air conditioning is not your only option of course you can still get ventilation going on coolish days and make use of more energy efficient ceiling fans and sometimes i get a little worried like everything's going to go out and we're all going to be sitting here in the dark but you know what i guess. It averages out. No one would even cop to keeping under seventy. I have a feeling some a year out. There are get your tuesday started start here tomorrow. Just subscribe worn all these stories at a._b._c. News dot dot com with a._b._c. news app. I've read tomorrow <music> <music>. Are you hiring with indeed. You can post a job in minutes set up screener questions then zero in on your shortlist of qualified candidates using an online dashboard. I get started today at indeed dot com slash start here. That's indeed dot com slash start here.

eric garner officer new york twitter brad milkey president facebook daniel pantaleo hong cong Kate shaw aaron katersky commissioner staten island congress mitch mcconnell washington federal government ohio gardner
The White House Witness Protection Program

Start Here

24:00 min | 9 months ago

The White House Witness Protection Program

"It's Tuesday November. Twenty six and that impeachment witness list might have just gotten longer we start here a federal judge ruled. WHO's the White House can't keep all of its employees from Congress? The judges saying this is basically fiction. This argument that you can ignore office a peanut and this goes beyond one president. We will break down not one but two big rulings overnight president trump's support of a disgrace seal ripples through the military leaders of the special warfare community will feel like they've been chopped off at the knees arthritis has new details on the aftermath of the standoff and these jewels were safer a couple hundred years. So where are they now. The authorities here talking about that cultural value being greater the material value the historic heist that has rocked in Europe from. ABC News this is start here I'm Brad Milkey. This is a week. Where in theory members of Congress are off out of Washington for the Thanksgiving holiday to meet with constituents? Do what you WanNa do in reality though. This is the week where the House Intelligence Committee is going over everything they heard in the course of seven different hearings in the last couple of weeks encountered an irregular informal channels share baseless allegations with the president. My intent was to raised concerns because they had significant national security implications for our country. I've been hurt. President trump. Ask so he's going to do the investigation. Mr Giuliani's requests were a quid. Pro Pro quo for arranging a White House visit for presidents Alinsky assuming that the end of those hearings the next step would be to write a report and adopted the House Judiciary Committee and and see if that committee draws up articles of impeachment the House would vote on that Senate decides whether or not the president but with every day that passes beyond those hearings. We're learning that's not necessarily summarily. All there is to this story because the People Congress have heard from are not the only people they wanted to hear from and last night a judge issued a ruling that could have profound profound implications. Not Just for how these impeachment hearings go but for the trump administration overall. ABC Supreme Court contributor. Kate show with us. And so I mean can you just explain what this ruling was and why. It's a big deal. Sure Brad so this actually stems back. To the Muller reports Don mcgann former White House counsel was actually a really significant player in the Muller report specifically typically involving some of these obstruction of justice episodes began told the special counsels team under oath at the president repeatedly asked him to fire Robert Mueller mcgann said he refused even threatening threatening to resign so congress has been wanting to talk to mcgann directly since way before these impeachment proceedings were underway. This committee will hear Mr mcgann's testimony even that if we have to go to court to secure it this laws that has been in the works since last spring and now we have a ruling that says the administration has made basically frivolous legal arguments. Them again again doesn't even have to show up to answer questions in Congress I and in fact he's required to answer congressional subpoenas. He may be able to avoid answering specific questions but he can't just not show up. Yeah well that's the Mueller investigation like you said but I remember last week Kate. We were talking about John. Bolton the former national security adviser how much Congress wanted to hear from him in that they subpoenaed him but he was like no sorry. I actually have to wait for a court ruling to know if I'm allowed to comply with does this mean more people have to testify now. I think this ruling could definitely have implications locations beyond just Don mcgann so basically the White House has been making the argument with respect to mcgann with respect to Bolton with respect to Mick Mulvaney that these advisers enjoy something called absolute immunity. That Congress can't even require them to show up to answer questions and then maybe fight about whether things are protected by executive privilege. No the White House has said they don't even have to respond to subpoenas Pena's and this decision is a powerful rebuke of that legal argument. A federal judge telling the White House. The constitution never envisioned a president having the power our quote kneecap house investigations by demanding. His staffers ignore congressional. Screeners to judge is saying this is basically fiction this argument that you can ignore waffle subpoena subpoenas not an invitation or suggestion. You have to show up you know this is just one district court. I think they're almost the DOJ says that's not the end right you. You can appeal all this you certainly can. But it's also the case that if these former White House officials are a little bit hesitant about what they're what they think their legal obligations are they you could point to this ruling as basically an authorization for them to show up an answer questions in Congress you know if anyone is looking for cover in order show up to testify. I think this opinion very much gives them that. We actually heard Bolton's been going over this with his lawyer overnight and Kate. This was not the only legal decision the White House had to deal with last night right the. US Supreme Court is now looking at the president's taxes. I mean that sounds very separate. Is this related at all to what we were just talking about. You know I think. These cases are conceptually linked although the topics are different so there are actually two cases involving requests for the president's taxes. One from the Manhattan. Da One actually from a congressional committee but the White House is is making the argument that because the president is involved basically the normal rules don't apply and maybe the law doesn't even apply and that is basically the argument that they were making with respect to these advisers and their testimony and that this district court opinion really strikes down at the Supreme Court actually issued a stay on giving up those tax returns. Meaning they don't have to do it right now. And if the White House was looking for a signal that the Supreme Court might be sympathetic to the president that might have been pretty decent signal for them still a lot of judges right now saying the president's way more constrained in the White House is admitted in recent history. Kate Shaw thanks so much. Thank you Brad. And as we talk about impeachment remember. There's another central character that keeps popping up again and again and he's coming under closer and closer scrutiny. Rudy Giuliani the president's personal lawyer. The president's lawyer went on on Fox News to say he's not worried his client might expect him to take the fall for Ukraine saying things written. Why he's going to throw me under the bus right when they say that? I say he isn't but I have insurance but Giuliani now says in a tweet. He's being sarcastic. And while Congressional Democrats ponder their next steps while the White House fights it's battles while the White House Turkey Start Angling for their pardons. Let's get you up to speed here. ABC's Johnson Touchy is sourced up and down Pennsylvania Avenue and Jonathan. There could be new evidence in this whole debacle Well like you Brad. I was hoping is to focus on Turkey pardons but like usual. Washington is other plans for our weeks. You know I do think that as we start to see things if you will quiet down. Publicly as members of Congress are away. That doesn't mean. The work of the Committees has necessarily stopped. We've actually learned within the last couple of days. The House Intelligence Committee came into possession of documents records videos images and photographs. From one of Giuliani's lianis associates love partners Farnesina Gor. Fruman stood before the judge here in pleaded not guilty to campaign finance charges. One of the two that were indicted up in the southern district of New York case that is still ongoing. What's interesting there Brad is that that is the first person as a released Giuliani to actively cooperate with with this congressional inquiry? Now our sources tell us that it's a lot of stuff it's a Lotta video recordings it's images there's documents some are in English Submarine Marin Ukrainian. We don't know the exact substance that is so obviously it could be something huge. It can be something not so huge but the fact of the matter is that it is still jill cooperation ever the less that they are going through right now house intelligence chairman Adam Schiff announced. Today he will release a report. Shortly after Thanksgiving revealing ailing quote a fact pattern that is overwhelming unchallenged and damning. And so that's what. I'm trying to figure out John. I mean we've had these congressional investigations but we've also had the criminal investigations by federal authorities or those guys finding stuff that would influence congress in theory and if so does Congress need to slow its role. Well your your question is interesting. But then the other piece of your question is do Congress and the federal investigators in New York have to play Nice with each other and the answer to that is not really right. The feds are going about their investigation slowly methodically. We saw overnight. The Wall Street Journal reported. ABC is confirmed that the prosecuting nineteen in the southern district. New York has actually been issuing more and more subpoenas To the Guiliani orbit they asked for documents records etc etc and the details details according to the Journal. Is that indie subpoenas. They were looking for information about money. Laundering fraud campaign finance violations. I mean the list goes on and on and on the takeaway is that they are casting a wide wide net but John I just have to ask a really basic question. All the stuff about Giuliani's associates and pleading eating not guilty to campaign finance violations. I mean even if Giuliani himself got indicted. What does that have to do with President trump and whether he exploited another country to look into Joe Biden? Like what does that have to do with anything because they took the same road together. Brad because you have. The president is State's asking Ukraine go after Joe Biden while the road that he took required vehicle to get there and in the driver's seat of that vehicle was Rudy Giuliani. And these two guys partisan firm and were in the backseat. Rudy is a great crimefighter corruption fighter. I take your point that they're not exactly the same stars if you will because the president is obviously the focus of the impeachment. c'mon pro because he's the one that could be impeached and Rudy is the star of the Southern District Investigation which is still growing but the fact of matter is that they had to go on the same path together for what they were doing. And if there is something damning if you will in these documents records videos recordings etc etc that Congress has that could be something that would be focused. More for Giuliani stuff but it could have been actions condoned by the president. We don't know yet. Another nugget reported overnight. The White House is actually reviewing that attempt to withhold aid from Ukraine to go over their own phone records thrown emails and sources. They're telling you you do a real question springing up about whether there was a scramble at the White House to go back after the fact in justify all these calls John Santigi. Thanks so much thank Ncube read next up on start here. There's nowhere more unified than the American military usually. Are you tired of being tired. You've gotta try a purple mattress the only mattress with the purple grid. That gives you the soft comfort. You Crave and the firm support you need need. It works for anybody type in any sleep position. Sound too good to be true. Feel it for yourself with one hundred nights risk free trial and purples ten year. Warranty listeners will get a free free purple pillow with the purchase of a mattress. That's in addition to the great deals. They're offering site-wide just text. ABC to eighty four eight eight eight the only way to get this free pillow. It's the text. ABC Two eight four eight. You may have heard about a VPN that was recently breached. Hackers compromised the very thing that WIFI users relied on to help keep keep them private online. Thankfully there's a VPN you can choose that comes from the trusted leader and Consumer Cybersecurity Norden Secure VPN. It uses bank grade. Encryption to help block hackers from stealing the Info you send and receive over Wifi. It's part of the all in one protection. You get with Norton three sixty with lifelock it includes Norton secure. VPN device security dirty identity theft protection and more. Don't risk compromising your online privacy with the wrong. VPN Get a VPN. That's part of the all in one protection you need for today's connected world. Get Norton three sixty with lifelock. No one can prevent all cybercrime and identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses but Norton. Three sixty with lifelock is a powerful ally for your cyber safety sign up today and save twenty five percent off your first year by going to Norton Dot com slash ABC. That's twenty five percent off Norton three sixty with lifelock at Norton in dot com slash. ABC NORTHERN DOT COM SLASH ABC morning. So this is right now. Probably the the world's most famous talk yesterday. President trump congratulated America's favorite member of the Armed Services Code Him. The dog help take out the leader of Isis. And we just gave Conan a metal plaque. And it's really uh and I actually think exactly what was going on the mall. That was all smiles. That is not the mood at the Pentagon right now because while Conan might have a job former Navy secretary Richard Spencer does not to wash now where the navy sector has been forced to resign resigned at odds with President trump and his Pentagon secretary over the handling of navy seal warcrimes case as we reported yesterday so I went back to president. Trump's defense of navy seal convicted deposing with the corpse of a prisoner a teenager. Spencer's boss defense. Secretary Mark S. Burt originally said this was all about not respecting the chain of command but yesterday we started hear from the president himself and exactly how this forced resignation went down. ABC's chief global affairs correspondent. Martha Raddatz is with us. So Martha I mean what have we learned over the last twenty four hours. Well the president clearly is the one who ordered the Pentagon to let Eddie Gallagher keep his seal Triton Pin with any gallagher. Did you know that story Mary. Well they wanted to take away and I said No. You're not gonNA take it away. He was a fighter. He was one of the ultimate fighters tough guy and secretary criterion Esperer. The defense secretary said okay. Basically I give up. We're not gonNA have this review where it was possible that he could have lost that Trident. Pin meaning his signifies. He's a seal but more than that his rank which provides benefits as well and I was going to confuse Martha because originally Mark Asper that defense secretary saying. Hey Guy Brand under me Richard Spencer Kinda went behind my back and talk to the White House about this deal but the deal was let gallagher. Keep us pain. which would from the words of Richard Spencer it really sounded like he is not on board with US Navy seal or what the White White House is doing it? It's all very confusing and secretary. Asper made clear that he and Mark Milley the chairman of the Joint Chiefs wanted. The process has to go forward. Wanted to allow the Navy to review gallagher and whether he deserved to keep that tried to pin and his rank doc and benefits defense secretary. espy says he fired Spencer for going around him. In dealing with the gallagher issue what happened according to Esber. Is that Secretary Spencer. The Navy Spencer who is a trump appointee was talking to someone at the White House White House folks and saying look just let the review go forward But in the end he'll keep his Trident Pin Navy Secretary Richard Spencer just issued a statement saying he quote cannot in good conscience obey in order he believes violates his sacred oath. What does this whole controversy mean for president trump then and his role as commander in chief? I listened closely to the President from the Oval Office US on Monday. I think what I'm doing sticking up for our armed forces and there's never been a president that's going to stick up for them and has like like I have including for him to say look. They wanted to take his pin away. And I said you're not going to take it away. He was great fighter. And then you have a system where these warriors with him get put in jail for twenty five years. I'm going to stick for our warrior. I will stick up for the warriors. Okay thank you very much. Everybody those I people in Special Warfare Community who are totally against gallagher keeping that trident say that is not what their culture promotes their culture promotes order and discipline that when the fighting gets tough no matter how mad you are and how angry at that Isis fighter in what all those horrible people stand for. You're a better person and I've been asked him. I mean you know people in the military how I mean. Did you have a ballpark idea of how many of them agree with the president. That guys like gallagher kind of get a bad rap and that our soldiers need more leeway in the fog of war with prisoners of war. I mean are there are a lot of voices like that. I have not really talked to anyone. No one is reached out. In any way saying gallagher was a great guy we are back with Fox News alert update in the case of Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher and he certainly says he has his supporters and we have seen them. I'm trying to encourage people to join the most elite forces. This is a perfect example of how you can destroy that recruitment but I I was in touch with someone I vastly vastly respect. WHO's been in the navy seals for decades and he said the leaders of the special warfare community will feel like they've been chopped off at the knees he's by having the president's Stop Dish Review the jury acquitted gallagher on the most serious charges but convicted him proposing an picture next the body of a teen Isis fighter? They've already taken away about a hundred and Fifty Trident since twenty eleven for lesser offenses. And this this community is so proud of how they got there what they do and what they stand for and there are many of them who do not believe leave that Eddie Gallagher stands for that anymore. The plan is for him to retire soon but he will retire with that pin on his uniform. Martha Raddatz thanks so much you bat brad. We see lots of bank robberies in this country in Europe meanwhile they've got a slightly different problem that brazen heist in London. Hundreds of millions in valuables jewel. Thieves repelling down elevator elevator. Shafts European burglars see love a good heist preferably involving really really expensive jewels. Police say who edited this came in through an elevator shaft. After dropping down to the basement they used industrial drills to break through a twenty inch reinforced concrete. All but even these bandits really go after history of yesterday in eastern Germany near the Czech border authorities said thieves have broken into a museum and walked away with pieces. You can't really put a price on it all. ABC's foreign correspondent James Longman. We'll try to put this in perspective for us. So James Way are you. I am as we speak right. townside this museum it's an ancient palace. It is freezing cold in Dresden and I'm scene of the crime basically. What was the crime? Here what these people steal. Who are there well? It was quite elaborate. We don't know who they are. They managed to get away But we understand just before five o'clock walk in the morning on Monday. Police were called to a fire at an electrical junction box and It seems to put out the lights around the museum possibly ably over one specific window through which it seems that these suspects gained entry. They took apart a an iron inculcate over the windows smashed their way in and the TV footage is extraordinary. It's like something out of a movie. You can see at least two suspects with their flashlight sweeping around the room this beautiful medieval tiled floor black and white tiles and then they find they way over to an ornate jewelry case and basically with ax smash their way in and we understand now have taken three sets of jewelry. Don't know quite what they're worth because authorities here say they're essentially priceless but they made off with them within minutes. The police were actually on the scene and under ten minutes and these guys were long gone at least two suspects. Rex may be more. That was a cough found on fire not far from the scene at a garage which they believe was used as the getaway car and now the hunt is on to find these these guys on a and could you just speak to what the reaction was in this part of Germany for this particular site because from all the coverage I've seen within Germany. It really does sound like this was a sort of a cherished thing and kind of shocking moment. Yeah I mean these. This jury collection that dates back to seventeen twenty three a guy called Augustus. The strong one of the early rulers of of what was then You know a collection of kingdoms. In this part of Europe it grew into the royal family's exquisite trove of ivory silver and gold treasures displayed in rooms as opulent as the collection itself and the authorities. Here talking about that cultural value being greater to the material value its purpose synthesis of the arts as an expression of wealth and absolute power. This is one of Europe's oldest museums. Ziems it's inside. A royal palace called the Green Volt because of this wonderful green paint is used up to a billion dollars to believe some of the local press worth of jewelry inside aside so it is an extraordinarily important cultural icon for Germany. I just think of my own country. In the United Kingdom the crown jewels housing the are of London similarly priceless in kind of you know the national psyche and I think that's what's happier in Germany. They've had a piece of their history. Solan I James Longman in Dresden. Germany keeping his eyes peeled to thanks so much. Thanks and one last thing Willie Murphy is eighty two years old. She's a grandma she looks about. One hundred fifteen pounds and she lives alone late at night recently. She's getting forbid when she hears a strange man pounding on her door he was outside Sam please call analysts. Because I'm sick I'm sick. She does does the smart thing in that situation. She says okay. I'll call for help but I'm not letting you inside. Well that's when this guy starts to force the door open. This is the nightmare scenario. If you're an eighty two year year old grandma with his intruder didn't know is that this grandma is also a bodybuilder. See is the wrong person mess with the condemned indeed lived two hundred twenty five pounds and this guy comes in she knocks him over and lifts up a table and are working on him and guesswork the table Bro. She starts slamming on him when he's down. I'm jumping on him on. The table is broken. She empties a bottle of shampoo and his face and starts whacking with the broom. His Don already. 'cause I had really did a number on that man when the cops arrived the guy still in the floor floor and then the police just asked to take selfies with her. I'm alone and I'm old but guess what. I'm tough so intruders in Rochester. New York or anywhere for that matter. Jeff don't mess with grandma you've been warned tweeted this interview she did with. ABC William Murphy is wearing a shirt from her local. Powerlifting competition. Mike this is who she is. If you get six seconds please click open your podcast APP right. Now give us a five star review maybe a rating that would mean so much to us more and all these stories at ABC News Dot com the BBC News App. Brad milkey tomorrow The the National Geographic podcast overheard is back and this season. They're exploring the ancient. Maya Cave of the Jaguar God the graffiti of Pompeii. They're searching for alien alien. Life underground join overheard every week and dive into one of the curiously delightful conversations overheard around National Geographic's headquarters inspired by explorers photographers and scientists at the edges of our big bazaar and beautiful world overheard from National Geographic available. Now on your favorite podcast APP.

president White House Rudy Giuliani Congress ABC Brad Milkey President trump White House Eddie Gallagher Supreme Court Kate Shaw Europe Don mcgann House Intelligence Committee Martha Raddatz Manhattan ABC John Santigi Special Warfare Community Robert Mueller mcgann
Thursday, May 14, 2020

COVID-19: What You Need to Know

38:06 min | 3 months ago

Thursday, May 14, 2020

"This is an ABC News Special Covert Nineteen. What you need to know here is ABC. News correspondent Aaron Katersky. It has become a reliable reality. Check each Thursday. The Labor Department tells us how many more Americans filed new claims for unemployment benefits a snapshot of Covert Nineteen's economic toll. And the numbers. Never fail to stun another. Three million people lost their jobs. Bringing the total of the last eight weeks to more than thirty six million Brian Catches Dean of the College of business at the University of new haven. Dita's any end this. Of course there's an end in sight but it. The duration of the downturn is Is Unknown how long it it continues whether you're looking at the unemployment rates that came out last week For the claims that are still being filed I think it gets worse. Obviously know fourteen point seven percent unemployment and last month is quite high but I think it gets even higher in the next cycle. What was going on with the jobless claims as it. Finally that and jobs that were unaffected by the initial shutdowns from the virus are starting to catch up. I think they're probably The way I like to think about it to two buckets of the executives of one bucket was a very aggressive could see what was happening and moved very quickly To balance the budget really trying to reduce costs in a significant way to make sure the budget was balanced. Others are in a different budget Perhaps they the quick v-shaped recovery. This is going to be a hit. We'll take it. We'll bounce back quickly. If you believe that line of thought you might say okay. Let's let's absorb And as a story as frankly changed at. That's fundamentally what's happening to say. It's not a quick snap back. It's more of a long drawn out process and for the businesses that didn't act immediately. They're acting now and I think that's what you're observing now Across the country some businesses prefer the early approach. Some tried to wait it out and there's just been no waiting out the virus it so the fundamental question issue there is liquidity for some businesses. If it's short yes I'll take alone even if it's at a low interest Deal with that in a Pay That loan back in some cases in some cases if if you follow the rules of the Cares Act If it can be forgiven. But that's all in a world where revenue is coming in in a you over the course of eight weeks. Really fundamentally observed that the revenue streams have saw stopped. You find yourself insolvent so it doesn't matter how many opportunities for alone is out. There are out there. You're in solve it and I think many other businesses are facing that world right now and so then you see you know just throwing in the towel Because they're insolvent and you know fifty percent of employment is through small business they just don't have the capital reserves to sustain of much longer along is going to take to get these jobs back so it took twelve years to get those jobs so that's one possible scenario that repeats itself as soon as if there is a virus. A there's a vaccine in the world fundamentally changes right and so thanks little quicker but if you're gonna live with the with what we have now for an extended period of time the level of job growth is muted Ryan. Kinch the dean of the College of business at the University of new haven. The Centers for Disease Control are about to issue an alert to the nation's pediatricians about multi symptom inflammatory syndrome a condition that appears to be associated with covert nineteen and is affecting one hundred children here in New York City alone. We're joined by Dr Richard Besser. Who leads the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation? Who used to lead the CDC not to mention our medical unit here at ABC News. Doc How concerned should we be about this? I think Aaron. What would it points to is that? Were still an early days of learning about this virus and and what it does and what. It may do long-term you know the the the good news is that it. It looks like this condition and children. multi-system inflammatory syndrome. It appears to be rare We're learning. We're learning much more about this. There's so much more to to learn. I'm in it looks very similar to another condition in children called Kawasaki Disease. But it's but it is slightly different so what I take away from it is. We CAN'T BE COMPLACENT. We can't assume that just because someone isn't getting typical lung findings. Pneumonia the severe respiratory issues that we see in one group that there may not be something some other reason to prevent infection and it it again points to me the importance of really being careful and slow and intentional as we're thinking about opening parts of the economy because that will lead to more spread of disease and we don't fully understand the impact of this virus being slow and being careful certainly seemed to be at odds with how so many people are feeling right now and when we heard. Dr Fao she the director of the CDC and others testify before Congress. They faced a lot of questions about whether any of this whole stay at home. Social distancing lockdown thing has actually done any good. Has It made a difference? Are we doing the right thing? Yeah I I think that it has made a major difference. An Absolute Game Changer. When you look at what was happening in. New York City a month ago and the pictures and images from hospitals of patients everywhere patients not being able to get the care that they need to save their lives and where we are now where the healthcare system in New York City is able to take care people. That's because of the social distancing. The lockdown that led to a flattening of the curve the phrase that we heard time and time again. Flattening of the curve doesn't mean a disease goes away what it means is it slows down to the level that the healthcare system is still able to take care of everyone who who needs care. One of the one of the biggest challenges I'm seeing is that public health is being made the enemy of people going back to work. And that's not that's not the way it should be. There should be guidance from the federal government about how to open each sector in a way that protects workers so that the economy really does does get restarted properly that we have the public health system in place so that new cases are identified quickly and contained so that new cases don't become a local outbreaks become widespread outbreaks that then once again overwhelmed the healthcare system. These are all things that aren't the enemy of the economy. These are what will allow for sustained opening of the economy in a number of the communities. That you've been championing through your work at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. There has been a traditional mistrust of maybe public health in particular. Are You finding that? That's going to be a challenge to overcome. And how do we do it? It is a challenge to overcome. Because I've not seen evidence that states and localities are valuing the lives of all of their residents equally We are we see Black Americans. Latino Americans native Americans being infected being hospitalized and dying at at an incredibly high rates and there are things that can be done to address that one of the things that needs to be done. There's only three states that report. They're they're testing data. They're testing data by race and ethnicity. The reason that's important is that If you're not doing adequate testing in some racial groups and the other groups that are getting hit. The hardest your. It's no surprise. Why why we're seeing the kinds of of numbers. We are in in certain communities so breaking down data so you can get clarity in terms of what's going on is very important increasing testing and doing it in a way that meets the needs of each community. You know if you're dealing with a community that has a lot of people with with variable immigrant status people who are undocumented. How do you ensure that there's trust that someone coming forward to be tested won't be turned over to immigration Or someone WHO's who is here. Legally wants to become a permanent resident that they're gauge -ment with with healthcare services won't be held against them Due to the new public charge regulations. That say wow. If you're taking government services you can't become a citizen. Dr Richard Besser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation a month in the hospital with cove. Nineteen was just about enough for Tom. Barisha he left New York. Presbyterian Alan Hospital here in Manhattan dancing to the cheers of the staff three. She was admitted in early April time. When doctors were trying different plans of care it meant many different members of the hospital. Staff were involved so they all came to see him off one of the nurses wheeled him toward the lobby there. His wife came to greet him and he wanted to take part of the celebration so he got up from the wheelchair and started to dance. His wife said he's my husband of twenty three years. It was one of the most beautiful moments of my life. We're hoping for more of those moments as we move together through this pan-demic I'm Aaron Katersky. Now over to amy robot. Thank you Erin. Joining me now is. Abc News Chief. Medical correspondent. Dr Jen Ashton and Dr Jen with so many different states in various stages of reopening what our individual risks with various activities. And you say that it has something to do with we what you call the infectious does how does that relate to cove in nineteen. This is so important. Amy. Because it's helping us to find the transmission dynamics of this virus so that means how it's spread so some mini med. School here has to do with a really important concept that we know is key and how viruses spread and it's called the infectious dose the presence of a virus. Because we've heard this before it's found here it's found there that does not necessarily equate with a virus. That can make us sick. So we know that's a fact just because you detect virus somewhere. It doesn't even qualify. All the time as an infectious does different viruses fingerprint. They have different infectious doses the lower an infectious doses in general the more contagious that viruses. We can give as an example. The norovirus that pug highly highly contagious other viruses. Not so much so and so as we learn about this it will help us. Stratified risk with various activities. All right so then. How does the infectious dose of a virus relate to how sick someone gets? This is where we get into the groundwork of theories when it comes to this strain of corona virus because they're kind of theory that the infectious does of SARS covy to this strain of corona virus is thought to be low. That's why this virus spread so easily or is so highly transmission missile. The other thing that we're thinking is that the higher and infectious dose. The more viral load is transferred to a person and that can be associated possibly with the severity of illness. That's why we're seeing healthcare workers particularly in Europe becoming so sick and then the other theory is that masks can help prevent or slow the spread of this virus because it's literally blocking the transmission of some of that infectious dose from a sick person to someone else. Yeah that makes a lot of sense. So what are we still need to learn about the infectious dose and cove in nineteen a lot? There is a lot. We don't know when we have to remember that. What is still unknown about this strain of SARS covy to or Corona virus is the minimum infectious dose? Needed to make someone sick. We also don't know yet at all whether the infectious does carly's with viral load and then connecting those dots. We don't know yet if the infectious does leads to a high or low viral load and if that correlates with severity of illness and that is probably the most important unknown. Still a lot of research that needs to be done for that. All right Dr Jen. We will check back in with you a little later in the show thank you. Let's go to. Abc's Rachel Scott Who's in Washington DC for the latest headlines. Hey here's what we are working on right now. The Governor of Wisconsin is accusing the state Supreme Court of throwing the state into chaos. After striking down his Kobe. One thousand nine hundred eighty at home orders. The Ford three ruling allows bars and restaurants to reopen. The court said Governor. Tony ever stay at home. Extension had kept his authority for agents are said to have sees the cell phone belonging to the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. A law enforcement officials saying Senator Richard Bursts phone was taken as part of an investigation into a controversial stock trade allegedly made when the Corona Virus. I struck. Fbi agent serving that warrant on the prominent Republican senator from North Carolina at his home here in the DC area bird has previously denied any wrongdoing and has not commented on these latest developments and new details are emerging plans to reopen the University of Arizona. This Fall University President Robert Robbins selling. Abc's Tom Llamas. The back to campus plan hinges on testing tracing and treating the school creating their own system to produce and process diagnostic and antibody test for the sixty thousand plus people on campus officials. Say The big question is whether they can control students off campus and CVS announce it's re- it's opening one thousand new self swab test sites by the end of this month with the goal of processing up to one point. Five million tests per month pending supply vail ability and lab capacity. Cbs currently operates. Large-scale rapid test sites in coordination with five states and amy the University of Arizona giving US exclusive access to its research labs. We know other universities and colleges. We'll be watching this very closely. They nearly will Rachel. Thank you very much. Well as states begin to reopen and decide how best to ease into a new normal leaders are left to decipher how to balance safety with the need to jump. Start the economy here to give us the latest on. How things are progressing in California? Is Lieutenant Governor Alani? Kuna kissed? Thank you so much for being with US Lieutenant Governor. We know that Governor News earlier this week announced he was modifying some aspects of the stay at home order allowing Dinan service at restaurants and schools to reopen. But we still know that counties have to meet strict guidelines. Like what. Well thank you. Amy For having me on your show. California's a very big state. We're fifty eight counties. Forty million people. The fifth largest economy in the world and parts of our state are very different than others. So now we have about seventeen counties. That have moved into phase. Two that are to up restaurants malls for curbside pickup. And we're trying to move as many and industries into the category of partial reopening possible. Because as we know the more people who can get back to work the quicker we're going to be able to reopen our economy and save jobs and we know we've heard from medical experts who point that testing is key to returning to a more normal way of life. So what's the status of testing in your state right now? So California New York now are the two states that are doing. The most testing our goal was to hit twenty five thousand tests per day. We've gone past that. Our new goal is sixty thousand tests per day. Were on track to do it. And frankly you know as all the experts are saying we know very well and tracking to be key to reopening so that if there is an outbreak we can very quickly isolated and avoid having to go back into potentially another shutdown. That of course is the fear big headline this week. The California State University system announcing distance learning will continue through the fall with nearly all in person. Classes canceled you. Serve on the board of trustees. What can you tell us about this decision? Well it's massive institution. The issue was the largest institution for public higher education in the United States. Twenty three campuses. You have to plan these things in advance. It's very difficult to wait until July or August and so we made the decision that we needed to. Frankly just accept that we were not going to be able to bring a five hundred thousand students back on campus. By the fall we will be bringing some students back so students who need to be in labs as students in nursing who needs to be hands on. Training up at the majority of courses will be taught online With the full dedication that students will get much benefit out of those courses as if they were in the classroom and again. Hopefully it's just one semester hopefully is. I'm sure what a lot of people are thinking right. Now Lieutenant Governor. You're also a member of the governor's Task Force on business and job recovery. So what do you see as the keys to helping your economy bounce back? We have recruited some very high level volunteers to support our effort for reopening the CEO of Apple. Tim Cook CEO Disney CEO of my personal favourite. Chipotle they've come together. They're giving their own personal time to help us with things like advancing distance learning but also figuring out. How do we reopen restaurants in a way that they're going to be able to serve customers to to support their work and so you know Great example it's not just about how they reopen the restaurants. But they're helping US figure out how all restaurants can reopen safely and again. That's the key getting people back to work. But ensuring that what we've done to flatten are curve in this state saving undoubtedly tens of thousands of lives that we don't undermine that effort in a way that we can reopen but do it safely for our people we know. Governor Gavin newsom announced California's revised budget. Today that's what he's doing and I imagine that's a big reality check for the state. Well there's no question about it. We went from a very significant at surplus to now what could be over a fifty billion dollar deficit but again what our focus is on because this isn't an ordinary recession. We intentionally shut down the fifth largest economy in the world in order to save lives. Now the focus is on getting it back up and running again in order to minimize the negative impact. But will there be an impact for certain California. Lieutenant Governor Allan thank you thank you amy coming up next right here. The Arkansas concerts showdown hitting a sour note. The growing controversy over plans for a country music gathering life feels more stressful. These days stores are empty. Travel is on pause. Work is uncertain with social distancing. We need support now. More than ever talks base online therapy gives you the support. You deserve on a schedule that works for you. We all need to talk through. Life's challenges talks offers is support. We deserve at a price. We can afford match with your perfect therapist and get one hundred dollars off your first month with Promo Code Column Sign Up at talks base dot com or download the APP don't forget to use Promo Code Column for a one hundred dollars off your first month. There's not a person in America who hasn't been impacted in some way by the corona virus pandemic but in every community. There are pockets of people who are suiting up every death. Monday last seven district. These are America's essential workers the people who are keeping our world moving to drop off of that produce for one of our tenants and now a new podcast from ABC News. You're going to hear from them in their own words. But there's always risk could bring this home to my kids or my husband appearance. This is the essentials inside the curve. Listen on Apple podcasts or your favorite podcast APP. Welcome back. We have Dr Jen Ashton in the House and the morial day weekend next weekend the unofficial start of summer shutler jumping in pools and lakes oceans. And they want to know. Is it safe? What do you say about the spread of Corona virus in different types of water? So it's all about water today and the CDC justice. Week amy out its recommendations for aquatic centers in the setting of the covert nineteen pandemic. So let's take it. Category by category first of all pool water hot tub water generally has chlorine bromine has a certain Ph generally kills any type of organism. That's in there. Although obviously they haven't studied specifically corona virus so that in general in terms of the water is thought to be okay. There is no evidence at this point that corona virus can be spread by any type of water now when you look at freshwater saltwater no data on this long so they still have to research that the theory that this virus can live in that type of water is still is not known what is known is that Corona virus has been detected in the stool of people who are sick so there is the possibility that with sewage water and wastewater it can be detected in that still being looked at and lastly when it comes to wastewater and I thought this was fascinating. We her doctor couch. She mentioned the possibility of looking at wastewater in schools. Dorms as a means of surveillance to track if there's corona virus in that area so right now a lot of unknowns but in general water seems to be okay at the right and especially perhaps the pool or the hot tub being the safest among them if you can keep that six feet distant for sure that distancing is still important on the CD recommending that all the areas around a pool. If you're going to use one. Be cleaned disinfected sanitized and that distance really really important. All right and this is a big question. As people are reopening and entering businesses for the first time. Our NEXT QUESTION. How will temperature testing help with opening up when you can have been nineteen without showing symptoms? This is really interesting. We don't know how effective this is going to be at detection in someone who might be symptomatic so remember in medicine. We use a cut off of a one hundred point four degrees as defining temperature. So let's say they're gonNA do temperature checks for you go into your workplace or a restaurant or a mall. What are they going to do at one hundred point three? That's very very close to one hundred point four. It's not normal. Technically we call that a low grade temperature so it opens up some problems in terms of logistics. We also don't know how many people with Kovic one thousand nine. That may be their only symptom. We do know that a lot of people with Cova nineteen show no symptoms at all including fever. So right now. We just don't know how effective this will be at catching people. Okay next question. Can you explain what is no worthy about? Sweden's efforts to combat cove in nineteen in their country. A lot of eyeballs have been on Sweden and this is incredibly controversial even amongst epidemiologists public health officials and infectious disease specialist. They basically deviated from the rest of the Scandinavian countries did not close their schools. Down did not shut their restaurants down. They made a lot of social distancing suggestions but they left it largely up to individuals in the beginning of the pandemic their mortality rates and death rates tracked that of Denmark Norway and Finland now. They've pulled away to actually a higher death rate there about twenty five per one hundred thousand so the verdict is still out whether that will get them closer to her immunity. Whether that's the way other countries should go remember. They only have ten million people. There are small country but a lot of people looking at that for ideas as to how that might work in various cities. People are very divided about it. Yeah and a lot of people are against it. All right. Dr Jen. We appreciate it. And you can submit questions to Dr Ashton on her instagram at Dr. J. Ashton. Well Not Arkansas. And the intensifying back and forth between the governor and a concert venue over a country music show plan for Tomorrow Night. Will the socially distance show still go on? Abc's Kelly hard tongue has latest with a nationwide ban on large gatherings. Virtual concerts are a popular alternative but estates slowly start to reopen many wonder what their favorite public venues new protocol will be in Fort Smith. Arkansas temple lives. Mike Brown wanted to take on that challenge by hosting the nation's first live show with country rock singer Travis McCreevy when we got win that the governor was going to open up some things on May fourth we anticipated and got a little forward thinking that that it would open up. His attorneys admitted temple lives proposal. To the Department of Health for review we looked at the CDC guidelines. We consult with some physicians that are friends to get some input from them as well. The concert would be a milestone all ready being billed by the Arkansas Times as the first known live public concert to play in the United States as the nation slowly recovers from cove in Nineteen Isolation. But justice plans were in place for the monumental event. Kickoff Friday may Fifteenth Arkansas Governor. Asa Hutchinson announced the state would not be reopening. Its public venues until three days. After the event was scheduled to take place we just wanted to give the owners of those establishments and understanding as to where they can see a decision point for the future in regards to the event. The governor went on to claim. Temp alive had not submitted any such plan for approval to open at an earlier date. Clearly it is a three days before we determine it was an appropriate time to open up. You still have to have a specific plan of that would be approved by The Department of Health None of that was done in this case. The next stay he followed up saying looked at their plan and their plan was insufficient. At but safety protocols have been set the events websites seating it would have temperature screenings sanitation by fog limited bathroom occupancy even producing their ticket sales that number down from eleven hundred to just two hundred twenty. Nine seats filled was building. You set up and ready for Colored Protocol to have that number of people in here crushed by the announcement Brown. Didn't understand what prompted the decision to keep the state shut down the virus. No that seventy two hours GONNA pass. You've got rights of assembly in other venues that are not restricted by capacity. Or when they started doing it is discrimination. It's governor Hutchinson announcing the Department of Health would even be filing legal action. To Stop the event there will be a cease and desist order that will be issued by the Department of Health for Brown. This announcement was shocking so horrible time in our country the world is watching. We have an opportunity to a really good thing here for the St. The people the state in the people of this country the artists Travis McCreevy visibly devastated when we broke the news. Then just get told now. So although the state holds firm Brown and McCreary still hoping they'll be able to put on a show both of them eager to bring back some normalcy to Fort Smith during this abnormal time. Do you think this is the future of how will experience a certain helping on our thanks to Kaley heart tongue for that and billboard reporting there is now a second show planned for nearby Missouri this weekend. We're going to stay on top of this story and bring you all the updates. As states begin to loosen lockdown measures employers are exploring getting back to business as usual which leaves many workers wondering how to navigate. All the best place to start is to know your rights inherent to help us do that is legal analyst. Kate Shaw Kei. Thank you so much for being with us so a lot of people might have a very uneasy. Feeling which is understandable as their workplaces are reopening not to mention. There are parents out there who still have to deal with home. Schooling and caring for their children do these employees. Have the right to work from home. If they don't feel comfortable reporting to their jobs just yet you know. Unfortunately there isn't a one-size-fits-all legal answer to that question. It's going to depend a lot on state and local law and on individual workplace policies. I will say that in the various rounds of federal legislation that Congress and the White House has passed the cares act and then the follow. On's there hasn't been any sort of attempt to address this issue of working from home so I can't say there is any free standing right to do that. Under federal law. I will say that employees should be able to access things like accrued leave vacation days sick days potentially could access temporary disability policies depending on state and local law and workplace policies If a family member is sacred employee himself or herself sick FM L. A. Leave should be available. That of course is unpaid leave. So unfortunately it depends And I think some sort of federal solution would be required to really address this issue of people needing to work from home during this condemning. These are literally unprecedented time. So we'll have to catch up to them. Legally now if workers do have to go back to their offices are employers required to give them the resources to protect them from the spread of cove nineteen so once again it's going to depend a bit on state and local law and of course on workplace policies. I will say that as a general matter. Employers have a legal obligation to take reasonable care to protect their employees is and at this point. It seems pretty clear to everyone that basic steps like supplying masks and implementing social distancing in the workplace are the minimum required for reasonable care. So while this sort of obligation will depend a little bit on the location in which the workplace is Employers are opening themselves up to potential legal liability if they don't take steps like supplying masks and spacing employees out in workplaces. That makes a lot of sense now. We're also hearing that when some workplaces do open up. They may make employees test. I for covered. Nineteen is that legal. Is that allowed so this one is a little more straightforward in a word. Yes under federal law so federal law basically allows employers to require employees to undergo medical testing if they believe the employee pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others and actually the EEOC the federal agency that enforces a lot of workplace protections has issued guidance. Saying that in light of this pandemic in light of things like eight symptomatic transmission and community spread. It is reasonable for employers to require everyone to undergo testing before re entering workplace. So that could take the form of just temperature checks but of course not everyone has a temperature and so actual testing is under federal law actually permissible under current interpretations of the Federal Laws. Now I should say that state and local laws differ and it could be the case that individual workplaces have collective bargaining agreements where employees need to be consulted before a change like this is implemented but under federal law. This is okay all right and then this begs the next question. So someone's test comes back positive. Is that person then going to have their results shared with other employees. What are the rules? What's the legality with that? So actually employers are required to take steps to protect to protect the identity of individuals if in fact they do come back with a positive test so so employers are not without the consent of an employee permitted to broadcast the information about a particular individuals testing status on now I will say that employers do often seek the consent of employees and if consent is given that employers are free to share the information without employee consent employer still have to take steps to attempt while protecting anonymity to alert individuals who may have come into contact with a positive individual Of the need to take precautions but without consent. The law actually prohibits employers from sharing personal health information in the whole with the whole contract tracing contact tracing situation a part of being able to reopen. That definitely puts a flying anyway. Well I would say. A big issue. Here is consent. So if employees defined to consent to sharing their information and consent to participating actively in contact tracing that will very much facilitate I think our ability to to to trace contacts and to control spread but a lot of it does turn on willing cooperation and consent. I mean the one thing I'll say is that employers may actually be required to report results to health officials. But that's of course a distinct question from Intel and others in the workplace about an individual's health information. Thank you so much for clearing up a lot of the so many questions as try to return back to work kate. Shaw thank you for your expertise and your time today. We appreciate it. Thanks for having me. Jazz musicians are among those left especially vulnerable due to the pandemic with venues closed and events canceled their livelihoods have literally vanished but there is a new effort to get those musicians. Some much needed help and joining me tell us all about. It is Steve Jordan Artistic Director of the Jazz Foundation of America. Steve Thank you so much for being with us today and can you tell us a little bit about the jazz foundation and how it works. Hi Amy Pleasure to be with you. Digest Nation of America is a compassionate and loving organization designed to meet the needs of the men and women in the jazz community. We provide pro bono healthcare from the Inglewood Medical Center New Jersey create dignified work for the players who need jobs around the country. Have pop up. Gigs everywhere. Never Program called Jazz in the schools which we bring jazz musicians to local schools. Turn the kids onto this wonderful music part of their American heritage. And you know it's it's been wonderful being part of this organization the smiles and the joy that that music brings and you organize this special concert event. You're kicking it off tonight. Tell us about it. Well you know we have one of the Julie. Events for the foundation is an event called the tar gala. Call a great night in Harlem and we do it. At the Apollo theater year. We had the post cone this event this year for obvious reasons when the pandemic really struck and and the lockdown went into effect every musician in the community was affected Within this GIG economy these are the people who do the gigs and they live from Gig to Gig so as soon as the club. Close right that was it and a lot of people they live. They eat at the at the clubs. That is not just providing a job for play it. It's everything right so that came to an abrupt halt. We had to do something quickly. So we created the coded Nineteen Musicians Emergency Fund and everything that's raised in. This concert will know directly to that fun and that fund is designed to you know just were stopped at you know so people will have no jobs right now so we're trying to create and provide money to get to them directly sort of like this stimulus package that went down but these people don't qualify. They don't even know the irs doesn't even know how to get the money to these people so providing that one. I love that and everyone gets to enjoy music at the same time so had a taste of what we can see tonight. Let's take a listen to Sheryl crow singing willow for me History the lovely dri left me. Do WE MARTY and Steve Jordan. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for all you're doing. It's a pleasure Douglas. And that's our program for today. I made me robot. Thanks for listening me. A crisis like this can become a breeding ground for anxiety without the stability of our normal routine. The mind fills with the worst case scenarios. What ifs and worries if you're feeling anxious or overwhelmed you're not alone during mental health awareness month. Talk space is more committed than ever to helping you find. Support talks base. Online therapy gives twenty four seven access to a licensed therapist from the comfort and safety of your own home. They have thousands of therapists. Trained in over forty specialties including anxiety. Depression and relationship issues. So your sure to match with one who meets your needs and preferences once you're matched you can start messaging with your therapist the very same day as often as you need anytime from any device. Don't struggle alone let talks? Help you build a dedicated support system so you can feel healthier and more empowered match with your therapist today and get one hundred dollars off your first month with Promo Code Com sign up talks base dot com or download. The APP that's talks base Com Promo Code C. A. L. M.

CDC US Amy Pleasure ABC California Dr Jen Ashton Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Dr Jen Aaron Katersky Arkansas New York City Dr Richard Besser ABC News Department of Health America Kate Shaw Kei Tom Llamas
Derailed in Des Moines

Start Here

16:38 min | 6 months ago

Derailed in Des Moines

"It's Tuesday February fourth and that might have been the last time we do this. We start here on the biggest night in politics. The whole world watching the Iowa caucuses emplo night. When I'm feeling good or team was in the room where I wins? Fought it out fair and square aware. We're happy to have you and then watched a technical glitch play out in real time. It would take time this morning. We are still waiting to no one this thing and whether this changes American politics beyond twenty twenty ABC News this is a special edition of start here. Brad Milkey thank you for calling the Iowa. Democratic Party's these caucus hotline all of our representatives are currently busy for years from now. That's Cassandra kind of remember from. These Iowa caucuses look forward to talking to you suit but let's go back for a second. It's five forty three PM. In Anthony Iowa I see in Caen is the windy neighborhood. It's just outside Detroit. Suburban area and walking into a gym at prairie trail. Elementary School is caucus night. Everyone yes I think it is so no one else to caucus. No one else is allowed to come in the room after some painstaking instructions from the caucus organizers. I Windsor finally told after months of waiting. Go ahead. But you're okay here we go. I think it has started people. Start to make their way. Under the sign of their favorite candidate immediately becomes clear. This neighborhood likes it. Looks even between Bernie and Pete Deep. Amy Looks Small Close Charlotte spied and I can't tell who's Biden who warned warns warns over. There looks like decently populated later. Worn looks strong in every precinct. They are surprises. And the shocker. This night in agony youtube through three four five six Joe Biden thirty thirty six. Am Mak- remember. You need fifteen percent of the roof. Any of this matter Biden out of the year and starting right at this moment you get fifteen more minutes to hit that mark will find a new candidate can see this push and pull on the floor Biden supporters. Who just need the few extra people in their Corner Bernie? I say like and their big rivals who smell blood in the water finger. Overdrafts wandering around the room watching this play out in Real Time Elizabeth Warren supporters or waving friends over turnover and we're happy to have Bernie Sanders fans or going in digging for a chance. Komo no no are you are you sir. I'm certain suddenly the Biden folks look around and he says not happen. Joe Is my first choice. And within within two minutes they've scattered most of them making the ten foot walk over to the Pete. Buddha judge crowd back by gone in the more people you talk to Des Moines Cedar rapids. Anki really felt like this was happening in other places to this was mayor pizza night. Everything seemed to be going great so until it wasn't the surprise Iowa hours after the first in the nation caucuses wrapped up still no result. We are following breaking news tonight here out of Iowa Ella Caucus chaos right now. They're in this rock the caucus event. Everyone's waiting for results in for some reason. Those results aren't coming. Then we start hearing this might actually. It'd be a problem. There's a real good deal of confusion here. No one seems to know when these results are going to come. It's remember this is a night that can make or break campaigns. If you put all your work in Iowa and you bomb you might have to quit your campaign like sometimes it happens the next day if you succeed in Iowa you better get to New Hampshire to capitalize as quickly the as you can so candidates. Don't know what to do in one by one. Unbelievable Easter coming out sings supporters. GonNa be a long all night when I'm feeling good. Don't know what's going on. So we'RE GONNA go to New Hampshire anyway. So where are you like. What City are you in? I'm in Cedar Rapids Right now calling. ABC's Ryan Burrow covered a different precinct. A couple of hours away. So do you know what's happening. What happened just spent a couple of hours in a venue with their precinct secretaries he was trying to Colon the results. You had it on a piece of paper everything that we had seen that night's everything that transpired old the information within your hand desperately trying to call this phone number two recorded in Des Moines and she couldn't get through except getting a business or as you said it wasn't a busy signal that's on for hours and hours your call will be answered in the order in which it was received. We look forward to talking to you soon. So like what does she did she did she hold the whole time. Or what. Is it resolving itself as my question is is just being her sitting at this venue everyone else is clearly not four hundred people there. Everyone else has cleared out all the stats cleared out. Go five janitor walks in and says he has getting out of here now so I believe she was still on hold at one point. She told me she just hop in their car and drive the result. Even rat devoid. It would take less time waiting for this phone uncalled. Wow okay. That's insane. Okay thanks Ryan all right. Okay relieving the Buddha judge event. No one knows what's going on so we're GONNA head back to the ABC News headquarters in Des Moines. And we're GONNA find somebody who understands what just happened Okay I have found recline. Maryalice parks our political director. Our deputy the legal director. What just happened like what's going on? This is utter meltdown. I this was supposed to be the kickoff. This was the big nick. Start with the Democrats Big election year and they are unable to tell us who voted where they voted. Anything about the vote whatsoever the whole system that they set up to actually report these caucus results the most basic tasks. Just find out who voted for whom it broke down. It utterly failed them and they are stuck in a position where the Democratic Democratic Party really can't say anything about what just happened in the kickoff content. What was it like different like a new APP is the same thing they've always done? Why do you say that early? In the night I was not willing to get on board with this storyline because the party was saying they were going to be careful. They told us that they needed to make sure there wasn't bad. Information that caucuses are inherently apparently messy and take forever so when things were slow I kinda bought a lot of that spin that they had told us they wanted to make sure they cross their t's and dotted. There is and that this could take a long time but clearly as the night went on we were talking about something totally different. We don't know that it was the APP that fails but it was supposed to be a tool tool they had created for these precinct captains to be able to quickly report results. There were backup systems in place they definitely had to go to the second and third and fourth backup backup systems because clearly the APP was not helping precinct captains be able to do anything quickly as plant. So what happens. Usually come to you guys. And you're like this person won the Iowa caucus it's it's a big surprise like what. What do you do nobody wanted? Everybody lost for the Democrats go away. You're going to have a bunch of Democratic victory. They'RE GONNA put out their own numbers. They're already doing that. You're seeing from earpiece campaign. You're seeing from Bernie Sanders campaign. They have their own people in the rooms that give them at least partial results. And they're saying look our numbers show that we want. It's impossible to verify though there's nothing that ah you can use as an objective tool and already Joe Biden's campaign is signaling. Look we're not sure you can trust anything out of this. We Wanna see the numbers before you put them out. They are putting a Beagle big old flagpole out there say to the party. We are not sure that we'll ever be able to trust this. Joe Biden already night. The vulnerable position is that why he's the one being like there's this was all bad. This was all bad. Don't even Count Joe. Biden's team knew that bring a sanders went into this night with a really strong organization and a strong game plan. They had been tampering expectations for the last few weeks so so it is totally possible. That Joe Biden is trying to encourage all these reporters to look past these results that he might be able to benefit from headlines that are about the process and not about the results. And it's really possible that the final winner when all the dust settles really doesn't get the same boost of momentum that they would traditionally get because the contest of just just kept rolling on and it's normally supposed to be these headlines about a candidate that help rocket them into the next few racist supposed to go to New Hampshire with the wind at their back. Not just because they had a ticket get me like how do they eventually just had to get on a flight. Well I think they are all could not wait to get out of here for a variety of reasons up to and including the fact that this is not likely to be in play in the general election. I think the the whole usefulness of the Iowa caucuses was in question coming into the night and I don't think anything about this makes it likely we're going to be ever back in Des Moines for an important nominating contest again. Gum that big of a moments I think so rigged exactly right after twenty sixteen. You had leaders in the Party and a number of campaigns that were already questioning whether Iowa's should keep its first in the nation status. It's a messy process. A lot of people say disenfranchises too many voters. It's not regular voting. There's mail an option. You have to show up at the same time and now after through. This kind of mass reporting is so hard. There's going to be robust conversation about whether it makes sense to do this ever again real and now I know you guys have planned to catch will go recline maryalice parks. Thank you thank thank you. Thanks Brad and I'm thinking here. I'm disappointed right. We've been tromping around trying to give you a sense of a state that matters. So much for shaping shaping this race now. There's no answer it sucks. I'm thinking that I've been here for three days. There are people who spent the last year of their life with one singular goal all winning Iowa. Not just the politicians talking about volunteers door knockers. People move here for this. The numbers will eventually come in. We'll talk about them and we should but by then a lot of people will be talking about New Hampshire. No last night. All this energy has been building up was drying out. Thank you for calling the Iowa Democratic Party's caucus hotline on a phone line. Daily your goal next time on. Start here you thought this was anticlimactic. Democrats are trying to figure out the next steps for impeachment achievement. We warned you about another thing that really affected some of these candidates ability even campaign like normal normal said it will convene as a court of impeachment yesterday marked the closing arguments in the trump impeachment case setting the stage for final. Vote this Wednesday on whether to remove the president from office. Your duty demands that you convict president trump or not. This is an effort to overturn the results of one election in literally moments after this ended you had people like Elizabeth Warren sprinting back to Iowa. We've got ABC news legal contributor. cates shock US right now. So let's just talk about how these closing arguments went. Because essentially we know what the vote will be right so looking back on this. Where Democrats arguments fall short? Well one answer is that the arguments themselves weren't necessarily the problem for the Democrats Democrat so much as the Constitution's design right. The constitution requires a two thirds supermajority in the Senate to remove a president. The founders knew that in order for our republic to survive. We would need to be able to remove some of our leaders from office when they put their interests above the contras. Entre interest senators. We approve them in our history. We've never had any impeachment effort result in the conviction and removal of the president. So it's an extraordinarily high. Hi Bar and I think there's an argument that any hyper polarized moment where the president's Party controls the Senate. There's almost nothing if in fact anything that's going to raise the level of a two thirds. Vote to convict and remove. You can't trust this president to do the right thing not for one minute not for one election not for the sake of our country you you just. Can't you know it was really remarkable to hear this final statement from Adam schefter because he was appointed lead prosecutor by Nancy. Pelosi over in the house to come over to the Senate but he knows the president's not being removed tomorrow and yet it still seemed like he was kind of searching for something from these Republicans. Kate like he was making eye contact. Act with some of them on the floor. What is his case that he's making to them? You know shifts closing toggle between a few different lines of argument. One was if you don't convict this the president then all of a sudden. The wheels are off the bus and we are in an unconstrained world in which presidents can do almost anything with impunity. If you have found him him guilty and you do not remove him from office. He will continue trying to cheat in the election until he succeeds. I think he's also also trying to convince the senators to somehow make a statement right to stake out a position that condemns this conduct if you find that the House has proved proved its case and still vote to acquit. Your name will be tied to his with a chord of steel and for all of history one thing that might great service. A disincentive is a sufficient level of condemnation from the president's own party even if it doesn't rise to the level of voting against him maybe they make some statements from on the Senate floor. Maybe they put out press releases the tweet about it like Lamar. Alexander did Lamar Alexander. The Republican. He basically said Democrats interpretation of what happened is right and yet. It's also not impeachable right but he did say it was inappropriate and that I think matters and it will matter if other Republican senators. Maybe more moderates people like Susan Collins or Mitt Romney Make statements that are similar to Senator Alexander's. At least that sends a message to the president. That is going to get blowback from his own party if he tries is to do anything like this again. The president's behavior shameful and wrong because they're all sort of saying. Yeah he did it just a question of how seriously think it it is. I cannot vote to convict and like you said two thirds majority for removal. That seems out of the question but there are still some variables to keep your eye on tomorrow. Got Moderate moderate Republicans. Would they vote to convict. The president got moderate Democrats. Would they vote to join Republicans and acquit the president and remember that idea of censure that only requires fifty one votes will see. The parties might get together on that not a lot of unification so far though Kate Shaw you'd be watching. Thank you thank you Brad and one last thing is I pack up today head back to New York I really WanNa know. What is Tuesday morning going to be like for Iowans? What's it like when we all leave? You mean my cellphone won't be getting five million check soon. I won't be getting all these strange calls. I kept asking people this yesterday and almost was to a person they agree. It's kind of bizarre. So every four years. It's just the same thing. It's six to nine months of hype and then just literally. He'll stop tomorrow. They they said the yard signs stay up many claimed they don't particularly mind the attention. It's nice to have a lot of people in Iowa. It's good for the economy to what they're done with our the political ads those those are the things that find you everywhere no more ads on the Internet no more as on the radio no more ads on TV. It all just goes away but when I asked know specifically what about those nosy reporters orders like are you glad to see them gone. A woman looks at my microphone and says no comment genuine. Thanks to those folks here in the state that are constantly being asked by journalists for their most personal thoughts or just the nearest power outlet now we are allegedly. Getting the results of the Iowa caucuses later today. If that does happen we will of course have full coverage on. ABC News Dot Com or the ABC News App. I'm Brad milkey about to fly back our buddy. Alex Stone will be in the chair tomorrow breaking down in the state of the Union. Talk you later Friday night February seventh the first debate after Iowa and the last debate before New Hampshire votes. Which Democrats will take the stage who will emerge the ABC? The news debate Friday night live at eight eastern and special pre debate coverage at seven. Just ask Alexa to play the debate.

Iowa Joe Biden president New Hampshire ABC News Bernie Sanders ABC Brad Milkey Des Moines Democratic Party Iowa Democratic Party Anthony Iowa Senate Elizabeth Warren Ryan Burrow Elementary School Kate Shaw Democratic Democratic Party prairie trail
Impeaching Other Presidents

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

1:04:24 hr | 8 months ago

Impeaching Other Presidents

"When historic flooding hit Fremont Nebraska the local Walmart state open to distribute lifesaving supplies like food water and bedding free of charge since? It's two thousand Seventeen Walmart and the Walmart Foundation have given nearly fifty million dollars in disaster relief because every community has a story and Walmart Visit Walmart Dot org slash community for more info. If what we're talking about is not impeachable. The very idea that the president light seek the aid of a foreign government in his reelection campaign would have horrified them preservation of the constitutional order. They seem to be saying uninformative impeachment. Hi and welcome to amicus this. This sleeps podcast about the courts and the law and the Supreme Court and also justice than it seems increasingly is a show about the constitution and also impeachment so we have stuff to talk about this past week in some ways provided pretty stark example of what it might look like were were the constitution itself to be put on trial. Certainly we heard a good deal about law professors. and how out of touch elitist ivory tower checked out and just all out boring constitutional law. Experts really are America. We'll see why most people don't go to law school no offense to our professors but please really. You may not see this from you. You know like the ivory towers of your law school if you love America Mamas. Don't let your babies grow up to go to Harvard or Stanford Law School. We got law professors presence here of a party but we also received. Should we choose to receive it an absolute clinic on the framers Amer's impeachment constitutional drafting conventions impeachable offenses N. We heard it from some of the nation's greatest legal minds. Pamela Karlan Glen and Michael Gerhardt have both been on this show in recent weeks. They were two of the witnesses before the House Judiciary Committee this week no feldman from Harvard. Jonathan Turley were also on hand end for eight hours of testimony and questioning about issues. That actually have been at the very heart of this show for months now and so in some sense offense. This felt like the perfect opportunity to just stop. Listen to these scullers take stock of what they're saying where we are what we have learned. And what the framers were tilting at as they were drafting the impeachment language and joining us today to do this is one of my very favorite constitutional thinkers. Kate Shaw Aw. Kate teaches law at Cardozo law. School where she KOTEREC's the floor Shurmur Center for Constitutional Democracy. She worked in the White House. Counsel's office and the the Obama Administration as special assistant to the president and associate counsel to the president. And if you will recall my tribute show to John Paul Stevens. You may recall that they mentioned. You should always always make friends with the Stevens clerk. I if not Mary one well. They are the kindest and caters to She's also one of four extraordinary canary hosts of strict scrutiny. Which we've talked about here before it is a must listen podcast for Supreme Court watchers? And she's also because she is not busy enough breath. ABC impeachment commentator So she looks much less tired than she ought to but kate will come to the studio welcome to amicus. Thank you so much. It's great to be here. Kate last time I had you on this podcast. It feels like oh We were discussing presidential speech and An early Article Cool you've written. I know you've expanded on it About presidential speech acts it was in the context of his tweets and the travel ban. I'm always think view when Donald Trump says or does something that looks like it could be a speech act or it could be crazy. Talk always think of you in your work and I know we've built on it a little bit but I wonder if you could catch us up for a minute on your thinking. Is it's evolves on this sort of nexus between his tweets his comments sit rallies Things he flirts out on Fox News And presidential speech as a kind of performance of legal action. There's definitely been a lot more material since we sat down and talked about this and I think that it. I think my answer depends a lot on the context and the purpose for which you were asking about the meaning legal significance of the president's words And and I think I remain of the general view that most of the time courts. It should actually disregard casual utterances made by the president and that that basic presumption is subject to a bunch of really important exceptions. I'm one of the big ones that I was was mostly focused on when we last talked. was cases in which there some allegation that the president has been motivated by discriminatory discriminatory intent or some kind of constitutionally impermissible intent. And the president's words might go to establishing that intent so the travel ban is sort of the paradigmatic example of that. I thought the court was wrong not to take more seriously. The president's statements that seem to indicate an anti Muslim bias. In assessing the constitutional permissibility of this travel ban right was it motivated by discriminatory Tori animus or discriminatory intent And but in in kind of category of a sometimes actors throughout the political system courts executive branch officials actually should disregard. The sort of. Ill considered you know. Fired off tweets of the president. I mean I thought we had a pretty interesting example a few weeks ago. Oh although the saga got much more complicated but with the Neat Former Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher who had been charged with war crimes and acquitted of most but convicted of one one and early on. I mean so again that sequence of events is really complicated. There was an earlier tweet. In which the president seemed to be contemplating fleeting though not directing the gallagher be permitted to keep his trident and it looked as though inside the military inside the navy and inside the military probably. The decision was being made to just not treat as legally significant this expression of desire aspiration solidarity whatever it was. This was wasn't an order and I think that was right. I think the military basically did the same thing with the president's first couple of tweets Suggesting an intent to ban transgender members of the military either from enlisting or remaining in the military And in both those cases there were many more formal acts that followed but I actually thought it was right for the government actors in question to essentially set aside to treat something other than illegally significant act these presidential statements right via twitter in both cases. So those so you know you have questions about the courts are supposed to do with the president's words would executive branch actors are supposed to do And actually one really kind of at the Bulls eye of the news cycle right now. Is You know what the what Congress should do with the president's words and that is not. I don't think you know. His public words his tweets. His public statements are not At the heart of the impeachment inquiry but certainly implicated in it. So I do think that in terms of my own scholarship. That's something that I've been writing about now for a few months before we even in these formal impeachment proceedings what what has what should congress do and what historically shortly has congress done in looking at the president's public statements in the context of impeachment proceedings. And so this brings me to Andrew. Johnson there's been a whole bunch of like a raft of really great articles About Andrew Johnson in the last week or two that Have helped illuminate the ways in which that is in fact the best template for looking at trump I mean in many many ways more so than Clinton more so than Nixon. That was an attempt. Tamped to impeach someone for just an inchoate bundle of demagoguery. In addition to you know obviously discreet act with the there. Was this bucket of things that you're I think creeping up to describing which is just horrible use of words to threaten sitting members hours of the Senate to incite violence in some instances and that seems like it's the closest parallel in some ways when you're trying to gather all the strings here of what it is about trump that makes people nuts so many of the actions are just these speech acts that are appalling and they don't I mean I mean I think there are speech acts at the heart of the Ukraine question too but I just wonder if you could walk us through a little bit the Andrew Johnson as parallel only. Because you know here are You know articles of impeachment for quote attempt to bring into disgrace ridicule hatred contempt and reproach the Congress and then articles about the speeches is that he was giving in the incitement involved. And I'm just wondering if you know when you look at the end. There's a long list of articles in the Johnson impeachment each mint. which makes it different from Clinton and Nixon as well but so much of it is just the kind of being a jerk his mouth and help me understand if that's closer to what we're looking at and how to how to use Johnson if it all as a frame I struggle with Johnson or Nixon is a better analog I I think there are absolutely elements of both in that sort of cluster of allegations against president trump? I think you're right That there is there are tons of parallels with Andrew Andrew Johnson and so there were eleven articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson. Nine of them focus on violation of the statute the Tenure Act which he did of course violate by firing his secretary in which It's pretty clear was unconstitutional statute but But both the two articles that explicitly talk about things other than that statutory violation and. I think you're right. The actual underlying motivation of the Republicans in Congress who were the architects of that impeachment We're not really about the violation of that statute at all but much more more exactly as you were saying you know. He was an unfit and racist demagogue. That was why he was impeached. And I do think that the kind of historiographer of Johnson and for a long time was very sympathetic to Johnson and partly because there were racist historians who believed that he was wrong but also partly because And this this idea that the kind of the unconstitutionality of this statute undermined the entire Effort because you know several decades later the Supreme Court strikes down a very similar statute and somehow that that there is a profound vindication there but I thought it was interesting. So Turley in his testimony. Which I'm sure we'll get to seems much more sympathetic to the I think now being kind of discredited position that Congress overreached unreached Johnson was wrong? history has vindicated Johnson. I think that's actually much more. Contested proposition than Turley testimony. At least seem to suggest is so. I think it's right. There were other other reasons for which Johnson was impeached. Mostly the right kind of racist demagogue. And how how that was manifested his systematic attempt to undermine reconstruction -struction vetoing Civil Rights Act for evens bureaus bill Reconstruction of the military reconstruction act attempting to undermine ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment you know attempting to readmit the southern states and to empower former confederate officials. Appointing them governors things like that And you know essentially to hand the south something like a partial victory in the war. They had decisively lost and and that was why he was impeached as a much deeper obviously much more sort of deeper philosophical dispute or disagreement about the future of the country And and that you know you can characterize that as a policy disagreement carries it as deep constitutional values a disagreement e clearly wasn't about the violation of this Wednesday Juden. I'd and the rhetoric I think is just one manifestation a station sort of of that kind of very deep divide and so the problem I think with the leaning too heavily on the Johnson. Metaphor is that the actual the enumerated. The defenses were rather flimsy in Johnson where I think the enumerated offenses that. We're likely to see in the articles of impeachment that will be drafted in the coming. Weeks are far stronger in in the case of trump's so while they while it is true that there is I think Allow that congressional. Democrats are animated by apart from this narrow Arrow sequence of events not so narrow but sequence events involving Ukraine They also have a much stronger set of allegations. So I think that's the one reason I would resist. Leaning too heavily on the Johnson analogy and why the Nixon analogy is important because the substantive offenses are quite similar in all kinds of ways. I feel like we've a little bit under appreciated. I want to talk about the sort of nuts and bolts of you know bribery treason high crimes and misdemeanors as the you know either to capricious or too narrow Aro- because I think that was in some ways the emerging team of Wednesday's testimony. But I think right before we get there. I want to ask you one other thing. We ask Frank Bowman when he was on the show. But I think we forget you've really dug into the history of of how the framers chose the words they chose and and I think we forget both what came before in other words what the framers were what was on the menu for the framers when they were drafting the language of impeachment. What they took out what they kept in why they kept it in? And I think that history becomes really important when you're hearing Professor Karla. Harlan Professor Gerhard Professor Film. Presser Turley all talking about whether this high crimes and misdemeanors thing is too broad to narrow Um and what goes in and I I wanted to flag. Here's Jonathan Turley. In testimony in the end. Various standards that had been used in the past were rejected corruption and obtaining office by improper means betraying the trust of a foreign to foreign power negligence perfidy accumulation and oppression. Those are all things that come out says early so I think that there's a way in which help us understand what the framers were trying to include. Good and what. They were explicitly trying to take out that their British forebears ahead included in impeach manager and I will say it was so interesting. How largely kind of originalist the terrain of the debate during the congressional hearings was and I'm not an originalist? You're not enrich a-list Pam Carlin is not an originalist and yet I actually do think this is a sphere in which it is extremely useful to spend some time grappling with the founding era materials in part because they're so little else to work with right much of the time we have founding era materials and several hundred years of practice and it's some combination of kind of examining all that that helps illuminate present. Meaning and here. I think we have to do that too. But but we just don't have that many examples to work with and they're relatively extensive although you know it's spotty the kind of actual constitutional convention history history. But there is some documented history and and part of the reason. I actually think it's so useful here is because so much originalist. Debate is kind of Cherry picking examples from very very mixed historical record and both sides can deploy originalist arguments about what people at the time understood. Or what the framers might have intended and you kind of end up at a stalemate and here here. I don't think that's the case. I actually don't think that evidence is particularly conflicting. It's sometimes a little difficult to parse. But it's not so so so so let me actually to your question on a head on so you know. So so how did they you know before they even get to the language. Obviously they have to decide whether there's there's going to be an impeachment provisions at all and there's actually some debate about that you know. There's there's this argument that they were sending the whole thing so one of the things they decide is. The president will be subject to reelection and for your terms and there is an argument that that is the way to deal with the need to expel. President isn't to expel him through the electrodes and literally vote him out on the table at the constitutional convention and they decide. That's not going to be enough right. Sometimes presidential misconduct is going to be so dangerous. And and you know and this is key and sometimes it will involve attempts to manipulate elections to entrench a president in power. So would that's not gonNA work Just to rely on elections So they say we will create impeachment process it will include the president rate in England. There had been impeachments for hundreds of years of a minister's And things like that in under the king but the king was not subject to impeachment so that is a huge and important distinction between American practice in English practice that some of the law professors during the Wednesday hearing focused on and so yes. We're going to impede. We're GONNA have impeachment and yes it will include the president and so then okay uh-huh and who's going to have the power of impeachment. They think about like maybe the Supreme Court should do it. Maybe some state like the majority of legislators can do it. They decided to give the party. Congress divided between the House and the Senate and then the critical question unlike. So how will we define the kind of conduct that will warrant impeachment And so again. There's you know there's some records and it's not like a perfect transcription of everything. Everyone's and said right so there are some selectivity but they think about you know an initially. The first proposal is impeachment for malpractice or neglect of duty. So you know like truly just being like really derelict. In discharging the duties of the presidency and That language quickly gets replaced with treason. Bribery bribery corruption. So that's actually a pretty big shift. It's pretty broadly agreed that Malpractice neglect of duty is just too low bar that can't be among us has not neglected we all have our And so so then okay. So then there's a shift or something much more serious You know treason bribery. Corruption corruption ends up getting removed And just treason or bribery remains for a little bit. So there's a minute in which that looks like it's GonNa kind of encompass you know these two discrete and serious categories of misconduct conduct But so then George Mason. WHO's really an important player in all this came up a lot on Wednesday Ads Maladministration which is like another cut. Basically at this malpractice just neglect of duty and had been used in some English impeachments as term. This had been the charge maladministration But that too is subject to the objection that it's just just you know it's not it doesn't Set a high enough bar so madison you know wants to do something else. He says. Wiser provisions restrained treason. Bribery treason as defined in the constitution will not reach in many great and dangerous offenses but Madison also thinks that maladministration is not quite ready says so vague term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate right the Senate basically Q.'s. Anybody of Maladministration House accused but the Senate could remove anybody So Mason takes up. Maladministration replaces it with high crimes and misdemeanors And that's sort of it in terms of the I mean there. There are some other Secondary records but in terms of the actual the kind of key like Ferrans records. That seem. That's that's most of what's recorded and so you don't have much more that the framers have said about it during the convention you sort of look to some of the things that they said they wrote in the federalist papers they wrote in exchanges of letters. There's in speeches and you begin to get a sense. There are a few things that they seem to be most concerned about and One of them is this idea of foreign influence right. This is a young country. Bingo and the French are still vying for influence and the idea that a president could be subject to corruption or influence undue influence by a foreign government. Seems to be a huge concern. Imagine so that seems to be sort of one to kind of corruption and self dealing right abuse of office for personal gain of any sort Seems to be something that you see. Come up that there is this you know. Battled in federal sixty eight and sixty five Writes about The kind of political nature of the offenses offenses in order to be impeachable. Must be the kind of thing that can be distinctly done by public men. He says that can be denominated political. So like you know you and I can't do impeachable things right like you have to have a certain kind of governmental power to abuse at all all But so abuse of power abusive authorities to see that at the heart and then there are a number of things said in in various venues. That do suggest that the president's attempts to entrench himself in power or also the kind of thing that might warrant impeachment so the kind of election an election manipulation is also something that comes up so you sort of take take stock of the kind of roughly contemporaneous commentary. And they're actually is I think pretty consistent set of themes that you see arising and two things that I think are implicit in what you said. But let's tug at them a little kate one is I think it's really important to expressly note that the framers had add the whole range of really dire consequences under the British impeachment regime including beheading in seizure of lands and they took off Out of the table they wanted it to be really clear that in their minds this is not a heavy lift. Like this is a thing that could happen. This was not the death penalty. This was AH misdemeanor right. I think that's also a hugely important point. They they did think they were kind of civilizing and domesticating what had been a pretty savage kind of remedy in England blend and as you said sometimes a capital offense and that's they were really clear that what this is like. It's serious. The bar is high. We should try. Try to be specific. About what the kind of conduct is but if the worst happens you lose your job like this is about job loss and again I don't want to minimize the seriousness S. of impeding the president's hugely serious but it is the consequences were very Very explicitly in very considered way limited to two things removal mobile from office and potential disqualification from future office-holding which is understood as requiring a separate vote in the Senate so impeachment doesn't necessarily mean you can never hold public office again but the Senate can choose to take that step and that is it in terms of the consequences of impeachment and the other thing that I would ask you to unpack for one second again implicit in what you've said but I think it it. It gets us a little bit down the Turley rabbit hole when Jonathan Turley is talking about bribery. And he's talking about You know a a a Supreme Court case that is implicates a very narrow bribery statute. That is a tiny chunk of the bribery. The vast panoply of bribery related conduct. One of the things that you're saying is these are not crimes that Kate and Dahlia could do. These are very much facing elected officials In certain context. I think one of the reasons this gets difficult is that we're trying to map this onto something universal right all Americans can commit. You know high crimes and misdemeanors and I think the point was they were building in some sense a separate Canon of law that was directed only only at an impeachment and helped me figure out. How when you start talking about you know? Was He jaywalking. Did he mug someone. That's not super helpful in terms of thinking through what the framers were worried about right well first of all. There's not even a federal criminal code at the time that they're doing is drafting so they certainly can't have been meaning to peg like the word bribery to anything. In federal law there was nothing and But there were basic elements of common law bribery. and that is basically what Noah Feldman testified to you. Know what are you doing. You're corruptly demanding something in exchange for some kind of official act if you're a public official doing bribing if you're a private person you can prior to but that's a little bit different And those are the basic elements and it is true. Those basic elements do end up getting incorporated into the federal bribery Statute But the statute as it's written written and as the Supreme Court has interpreted it is in no way binding on Congress in these proceedings. Now And I think even Turley. Who of course is the? GOP witness during this hearing Says Pretty categorically you don't need to have a crime so I actually think that there was during the say the Nixon impeachment which was the first modern impeachment and everybody kind of had to go back to the drawing board and say like what does this all mean and there was a pretty active debate. Does it have to be something that we can point to in the criminal code so I think there was more of a division of AH opinion about it. Back in seventy three seventy four and I don't think today there's that much of a that strong camp that believes that impeachable conduct needs to be criminal. I think it is pretty. Broadly agreed upon that you can look to guidance. From the Criminal Code and their criminal principles that may inform this analysis and there there have been criminal offenses also non-criminal offenses enumerated in the exist articles of impeachment. That we have had again. Three presidents who've had articles approved against them But none of that is binding on Congress and and I do think that Turley the McDonald's case that you reference you know is this case that absolutely does narrow the reach of the federal bribery statute involving this governor in Virginia. And I think there is too much like I don't know I think it does make it very difficult to reach official corruption but that can't constrain what Congress can do here and I don't. I don't even think that truly really was making the argument that it should. We're GONNA pause now to hear from one of our great sponsors on this show and that is the great courses plus As you probably know and you really know if you're even listening to this show. We are in the midst of of a pretty rare impeachment procedure in this country It is not the very first time we've had an impeachment The great courses plus newest original release. He's going to the devil. Be Impeachment of eighteen. Sixty eight is actually an amazing narrative of an impeachment came before going to the devil. The impeachment of eighteen sixty eight is actually the fascinating story of the impeachment of President. Andrew Johnson the course details. The turbulent the fascination events leading up to and through this impeachment a period of history that as we mentioned today is often overlooked but coming back into style. You're going to. The devil is just one of them. Many objective fact based videos available to watch or listen to from the great courses plus explored Lord topics across a wide variety of categories taught by some of the very best professors and experts in their fields. Learning has never been so so easy and so accessible and I assure you that if you want to know how to think about what's happening in this impeachment Andrew Johnson's a really good place to start. So so what are you waiting for. A sign up for the Greek courses plus today. We've arranged this special offer for amicus listeners of full month of unlimited access four free sign up today using this special U. R. L. to take advantage of this limited time deal. Start Your free month. Now go to the great courses plus dot dot com slash amicus. That's great courses plus dot com slash. amicus I wanNA talk to you all about a great new podcast from Washington. DC's public radio station W. A. M. U. it's called unprecedented. And this is a show about the people behind some of the most important first amendment cases. The show takes you inside the stories of ordinary Americans who pushed the boundaries of what we now think of as free speech like the time someone published a really vulgar parody in Hustler magazine about televangelist Jerry Falwell or the time. Someone wrote threatening rap lyrics about harming their ex wife on facebook. Some of these stories involve just regular everyday students others involve KKK members. Some of these people were suspended from school or find or even sent to prison. All of them eventually took their case to the Supreme Court and they helped us figure out what the First Amendment really means to all of us you can hear all of these stories on the podcast unprecedented where NPR legal correspondent. Nina Totenberg makes an appearance in every episode. Checkout unprecedented right now. Wherever you listen to podcasts we know you value the journalism that we do here at slate and Dan? We actually need your support to do it. We need your support to make this show and all the other journalism we do at slate as a great and prolific as it can be by joining our membership ship program slate. Plus you will be supporting that work and you will enjoy all the benefits of membership like listening to this show ad free slate. Plus US members are right now listening to Kate Shah and I discussing impeachment and the Constitution. They're not listening to commercials. And if you sign up for sleep plus you you get access to bonus segments and extended versions of your very favorites late shows. It's only thirty five dollars for your first year and you can sign up free for two weeks to check it out. I sign up for sleep plus and help us to secure sleeps future to learn more and begin your free two week. Trial go to slate dot com slash amicus plus and now back to our conversation with Fraser. Keith Shaw from Cardozo Law School so so now you set up up. Let's say two benchmarks that I think are exactly at the heart of curly's critique here and that is one these are president facing these are not crimes that we could all understand. These are unique to this office and to it's kind of fluid we we don't know. There's not a statutory impeachment crimes and misdemeanors place to look and Turley takes both of those to you. Say That you're just going after the president and you're going after him for a bunch of vague crap that you don't like about him and if I a follow what you've just said that's in some sense true. The framers by design made it specific to the president and made it unbelievably really vague. Well I think the Carlin had a great answer to this question which is of course. They didn't provide a list of potential impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors diener because they couldn't possibly have imagined the kind of ingenuity right of band. You know interesting in misconduct and so you know the Watergate break-in is about about installing. Actually you know moving wiretapping equipment. They didn't list at because there were no wires and there was no wiretapping or water. There was nothing else Yvonne right but there is there are these broad principles and those can get expression through descriptions of the kind of misconduct that sort of touch at the point of impeachment. Right the kinds of very serious egregious abuse of office self-dealing and potentially including elements of foreign interference and election manipulation which which of course not the foreign interference piece but that Watergate was about it just a physical version of trying to hurt a political opponent. Right this is the DNC headquarters headquarters that these burglars are attempting to install equipment into to record. This is about pending presidential election. End The by tempted to dig up dirt in some sense on a political rival so those parallels are I think are are quite strong But I think that what the founding history is best used for is the broad principles and Beyond that kind of the present prism is going to be really important in. Ah Identifying and then evaluate the specific allegations of misconduct Let's listen to Michael Gerhardt for a minute. He's making I think the Mirror Mirror image point of Shirley's point which is in effect if we can't impeach for this we can't impeach for anything. Let's listen what we're talking about. `Bout is not impeachable. The nothing impeachable. This is precisely the misconduct that the framers created a constitution including including impeachment to protect against and. I wonder if kate the in some sense. He's making the broadest possible version of the counter. Argument into Turley. Which is Oh my God? Look at these facts. This implicates every single thing the framers worried about including election integrity including foreign foreign interference including corruption and abuse of power. If not this then. The president is untouchable. And in a sense it's as extreme an argument on the other side. Great I I I. I think it's not just hurting Carlin involvement make some version of the same argument which is not just that these facts would justify impeachment but that these facts facts require you to impeach that it's kind of mandatory looking as they understand the constitution's standards And of course like I don't think anybody thinks it is literally mandatory anti-tory that there would be some constitutional violation on the part of members of Congress if they didn't vote to impeach him but that preservation of the constitutional order the seemed to be saying requires an affirmative impeachment. Vote on these facts. And that's you know and I think that's in part this kind of pragmatic argument that there is a really important deterrence interest that is advanced by sending a clear message. Even if it is one that gets voted on party. Lines that You know another branch of government deems constitutionally impermissible this kind of conduct and maybe maybe that sends some kind of message to this president and future presidents about the unacceptability of re engaging in this sort of activity I WanNa talk about Pam Carlin for a minute In many ways because she becomes the focus of the hearings initially she just opens by excoriating. ranking member Doug Collins for his implication and that she had not read All of the prior testimony. She made plane. She had bad Turkey on Thanksgiving because she was reading Fiercely reading every word word of the testimony and then later because Republicans on the committee chose to really go after her for contributions for jokes. She had made On podcasts for alleged bias and and that has been blown up in the intervening time We Know Feldman and Michael Gerhardt somehow escaped the worst of that. And maybe I I. I'm I'M GONNA speculate but I'd like to hear it. Let's listen for one minute to The difference between Matt Gaetz Republican from Florida Colloquy with Noah Feldman and then with Pam Carlin. Yes I did. Write is winning it on time so I road. You're right since since like eighteen months from election house house. Democrats have made it painfully clear that discussing impeachment is primarily or even exclusively a tool to weaken president trump's chances in twenty twenty did. Did you write those words until this call July twenty fifth. I was an impeachment skeptic. They're all changed my mind Sir and for your testimony you may not. What's this from the ivory towers of your law school but it makes actual people in this country mental? Get to interrupt me on this time. But before we talk about Carlin Qua- Carlin do want to say. I think she makes this point. I tried to make it imprint last week saying the just vote him out doesn't don't work for precisely the reason the framers were worried. About which is he is actually imperilling free and fair elections and she makes this point mean quite explicitly. The founding generation like every generation of Americans since was especially concerned to protect our government and our democratic process from outside interference for example John Adams during the ratification expressed concern with the very idea of having get elected president. Writing to Thomas Jefferson that you are apprehensive of foreign interference intrigue influence. So Am I. But as often as elections elections happen the danger of foreign influence recurs and in his farewell address President Washington warned that history and experience proved that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican government and. He explained that this was in part because foreign governments would try to foment disagreement among the American people influence. What we thought the very idea that president might seek? The aid of a foreign government in his reelection campaign would have horrified them so kate. I'm going to ask you if you could make the best argument. You can. Drawing a line as Professor Corwin really did between voting and the right to free and fair elections and the impeachment charges being being leveled against the president. I guess another way to say that is why is the claim that just vote him out in twenty twenty not sufficient. If you're Pam Carlin yeah you know so. When I saw the list of law professors who would be testifying I was actually a little surprised to see Pam Carlin on it I mean? She's an extraordinary litigator and writer and thinker teacher But she hadn't really written about impeachment and so I I wasn't quite sure what role she was going to serve on the panel but she is one of the foremost scholars of the law of democracy. She writes about elections like this is at the core of her expertise. I mean she's a constitutional law expert. More broadly but this really is her area. And as soon as I saw the statement like of course this actually makes perfect sense and is quite a brilliant choice because you know promoting access to the ballot and The Integrity Integrity of American democracy is kind of her. Life's work brief. Stint in the Obama Administration was doing voting rights act enforcement but she's written a leading casebook on the law of democracy so the constitutional and on statutory and regulatory regime around the administration of elections and Preservation of democracy is what she is most expert in and so that is what she spoke. Two other things too But she seemed to kind of try to reorient this debate toward the integrity and legitimacy of our elections and thereby our democracy and that this was not just a corrupt shakedown for the president's personal benefit in some financial sense or familial sends. It wasn't that kind of personal. Oh benefit it was personal benefit to the detriment of the integrity of our elections and and that I thought was this very powerful point that had been not totally lost but hadn't been really the focus of the impeachment debate until her testimony and that is I think where she really tried to focus things And and I wonder if maybe just As a segue from and that to Jonathan Turley again his argument as best as I understood it was aversion. There was one part where he just didn't want us is to be mad and his dog is mad. we can debate that but I think there was secondarily process argument too fast. Too narrow pro just rushing into it And therefore somehow it looks to be. Mean spirited and Opportunistic steak and and I wonder if part of the I mean there are a lot of laws with that theory but part of the I think the the problem that I had immediately was he was writing up all the obstruction right. He was just saying. Let's let the courts work this out and that has to be just as the purely descriptive matter incorrect. That people who just say. Screw the subpoena put in my top drawer not showing up that. That's something that the the courts have to decide and that there's something unseemly about not allowing this to be slow walk through the courts. That's the problem with. His process. Argument is allied the the fact that the sole power of impeachment is given to the Congress and in a few things about Charlie one. I thought it was striking that he didn't suggest gest even any real substantive defense of the misconduct alleged right. He says you know it was clearly not a perfect phone call and It might well be the case. Under some circumstances circumstances trying to coerce a foreign government in to a domestic political errand might well be impeachable so those things are important stipulations. But you're right. You know his his main objection nations seem to be Too Fast record too thin stop and wait for the courts and it was a little odd because he started out by saying. I'm Tony and I side with Congress in the separation of power speeds and then he sort of pivoted to say nothing else matters you guys just do just wait you guys sit to do something else. Passed some laws and then eventually the court's ruling then you can kind of get started and and you know I I don't. I'm not sure that even comes from so. I think that you're right conceptually. There's a real problem in that. The constitution assigns to the house. The sole power of impeachment Richemont and There's no requirement that it use courts in aid of its exercise of that power And yet it is of course right that that discreet greet disputes over subpoenas. That are being defied Ken and are playing out in the courts But there's just a real practical dimension to I think the house calculation that it's not going to just pause and wait for courts to definitively rule on all of us which is that a as we've been saying part of the point is the preservation of the integrity of this November election. And it's extremely unlikely that court to be able to rule on all of this well in advance of that you know rapidly advancing date and so I think they think it's it's important to see this process through not just before November but kind of well before November and so it has to move relatively quickly And I think you're right that truly just I didn't and really hear him acknowledge anywhere that the reason that the Congress has it has been denied access to a lot of these Key witnesses is. Is that the White House has mounted this complete blockade of access to witnesses the ones who would have the most firsthand knowledge of the events at issue and so so the White House. Stonewalling seems just absent from curly's narrative in a way that I found we did overall I mean. Sure he's right. It would be better for Congress to have access to these witnesses and there are two ways for that to happen right. One is deliberate. This which will take many many months in to. Is You know he could direct some. Some of his rhetoric at the administration suggest that another way to have a full and fair consideration of all of the relevant facts is for the White House to simply lift this blog and allow witness come forward and there has been this kind of suggestion that maybe in the Senate they'll be but but it just feels like a lot of games right now and and I just thought that was a missed opportunity. Surly part of his genuine interest is get all the facts out if they warrant impeachment. Then go for with impeachment. But there's just another kind of missing target of that rhetoric that the the bad actor here in his view is the congress with no recognition that there's another bad actor which has stymying the ability to get the kind of fuller information and thicker record that he wants and it was weird that he starts. The clock at the clock starts the day. Nancy Pelosi announces impeachment. Not The day these broad rod broad it unprecedented arguments about Privilege about cooperation. You Know Clinton cooperated Nixon cooperated. There's there's no no flaw there and has now said in his opening I mean Clinton cooperated with his blood right like he gave a blood sample to White House doctor for DNA testing. Monica Lewinsky's Blue Dress Russell. That's with the Ken. Starr congressional investigators directly but there was a lot of cooperation in the to modern presidential impeachment even Nixon who had an obstruction article approved against him. Gerhardt's testimony makes clear that this obstruction is far far more serious than the Nixon era obstruction and Gerhard can cite the stuff chapter. And I like he knows it inside out and so when he says this is farmers e set on both the substance and the obstruction. This is we worse than Nixon and I don't think he's prone to hyperbole hyperbole not really but I think he's a modern and measured and careful guy and I thought that was really quite striking that he he drew that comparison so starkly in favor of President Nixon and against President President trump. And I know he was on the show the the last show and he he went off on a tiny nihilists aside and I had to smash my head on the table and get okay but yes no oh he is not Prone to hyperbole. I wonder if before we move on. I just want to ask you to clarify. We've got a new bat phone feature. Where are we call experts and one of the questions we had after Professor Gerhard was on the show last time was about the Senate's impeachment trial? And I know that you're you're looking at the the sort of historical precedents but I wonder if you could talk for one minute about who who decided we know. It's wide open setting. You know Senate sets the rules wide open. They can do what they want. They could not have a trial at all. But I did get a bunch of listener questions questions. Saying as between what Larry tribe had said on the show Walter Dellinger said on the show. Michael Gerhardt has said on the show to what degree can. I'm the Chief Justice override any decisions that the Senate may make about its protocols and powers deal. Yeah I think in theory you could probably make. Paul calls himself if he wanted to. I could just say we're GONNA SUBPOENA DON mcgann and I don't care what Mitch McConnell says. I don't think anything for closes it. I think there is zero chance at any if that will happen. Okay I I I think in theory. He can kind of shape the role as he sees fit I think that Salmon Chase not Samuel Chase. Oh the NPR. Impeach Supreme Court justice from the early eighteen o four zero five but the chief justice who presided over the Andrew. Johnson trial actually did take fairly active role But chief justice frank was was quite hands off in the Clinton trial. And I think I presume that Chief Justice Roberts will Take that lead obviously his predecessor and former boss Chief Justice Rehnquist who presided you know and largely stayed out of the way of the Clinton trial. I think he will view as having kind of set the the modern standard so I presume that a majority of the senators will vote to make these substantive calls about subpoenaing witnesses and that some of the specifics of the kind of timetable and structure of the trial. But I don't think anything for closes the chief justice from sorting himself. If he wants to that said I think he wants as far away from the spotlight is he. He could possibly get my version of this in my head kate as I just imagine him presiding but like with a big brown bag over his head and possibly like a bottle with Bendy Straw and some some vodka but like no interest in being the star of this show and I think that you know again. I think there's a lot of speculation among some of our listeners. That send in questions that are like can't he. Use This to take control of Mitch. McConnell in the notion of him in a battle of Egos or political will with Mitch McConnell strikes me the as much more likely the bendy straw vodka. I go with undestroyed okay. No stripes on the Brown bag either. MONOCHROMATIC Okay all right. We're in agreement. Now now I want to ask you I just want to ask you one sort of A BIG PAN way back question. You've been commenting on this for ABC. The and you've been seeing the same split screen that I haven't seen not just through this week's hearings but certainly through The Intelligence Committee where one side is just Chalupa Chiluba Ukraine. You know if this is also bad Read the hill politico. You know it is clear Biden Biden prisma and that endlessly we On a loop and no real engagement with any of the conduct surrounding Ukraine Gate as we I think of it and also no real acknowledgement that Those things are impeachable even if And then I think you know poor Nancy Pelosi and Jonathan Schiff and this week Jerry Nadler just being but look but look this happened. It's undisputed that it happened and I think one of the things that was is really striking to me was despite Doug Collins here's Doug Collins again the the ranking Republican on the committee saying. There's I knew facts. Let's listen this will also be one of the first impeachments chairman mentioned. There was two of one that before he resigned before then wanting Clinton in which the facts even by Democrats and Republicans wore not really disputed and this when they're not only disputed their candidate didn't have each other. There are no set the facts here in fact. They're not anything that presents an impeachment here except for president carrying out his job in the way the constitution saw the he sees fit to new despite him saying there are no facts in in truth. The facts are almost completely uncontrovertible. Everybody agrees agrees on them. Almost every witness including some who you can say hearsay hearsay but vitamin heard. The call right Sunlen heard the call. I mean these are firsthand fact witnesses this how do we get through. This is just a like hold me Keisha question but like how do we get through. Think Michelle Goldberg Word for it is epistemological all nine. Am there's just no truth. Nothing is knowable. So we're just GONNA just say a lot of words And and if in fact that's that's what we're watching this is what makes it different from Watergate right three networks everybody watching at night. Seventy one percent of Americans agree on at least the facts. All the critiques of of Adam. Schiff of Nancy Pelosi this week. Heavy critiques of Jerry Nadler for not making good television For Not Somehow corralling the facts in such away that rush limbaugh rocks back in his chair and goes you know they got him dead trade so he did it and it's over. What is the mission? What is the mission for the people who I think you believe? I believe this is necessary for existential reasons that we've both laid out not doing this. It is to allow more election interference. But what is the programmatic recommendation for you to. What has to happen in order to get US past split-screen America? I mean that is literally the question of our moment had a better answer to it. You know I mean I think it is it. We're sort of at the Niger. I think in the House House. I think that this we're not gonna see quite these just wildly diametrically opposed versions of reality in the Senate and there are some small comfort. There maybe this is me me being unduly optimistic but I think it's the case that you know if the Democrats could try to get this message across that it is not as though there or any competing witnesses all the witnesses are in agreement the GOP witness Jonathan Turley the GOP called witnesses before the intelligence committee. Right Fokker Morrison. I can't remember who called Salmon's on them. was there witness to. In any event the witnesses who were ostensibly more sympathetic both to the president into the Republicans who called them are all in broad agreement as the facts that you know Russia. Not Ukraine interfered in two thousand sixteen that attempting to drum up an investigation into the participation of America. US persons with this Ukrainian company was improper that linking all that official government acts was improper literally. No one who sat on that witness side of these hearing rooms disputed that at all Questions about at proximity to firsthand. Events and statements sure those exist but on the substantive factors literally disagreement. It just feels to me as though you won't quite have the same alternative reality version of the fax that no one has testified to when we get to the Senate as we have seen in the house house at least in terms of a unified front. Like you haven't even really seen Republicans of the more moderate stripes. Those who are retiring people like we'll heard haven't been sort of striking quite like Devon Nunez and Doug Collins node but haven't been as far from that as I would have expected and I have to believe there are at least a handful senators who dwell any more reality based universe but as I see those words. I'm not sure I even believe them right. Like silent media environment is a huge part of this problem album and nothing that we're going to say sitting right here is going to change that. I mean I hope people who dwell in other media silos are listening to your podcast. Dalia desperately hope. Hope there's two of into the email you know that's just my best. My best guess is to but I but I also you know I do think there is the way in which and I guess. This is my last question on this sort of like existential despair front but I I do think there's a way in which you know Devon Nunez actually being implicated located this week Rudy Giuliani seemingly running around Ukraine continuing the conspiracy You know I think that there is a weird way in which this is a almost a battle about who's just willing to keep doubling down and I thought actually Carlin's language of doubling down was really interesting interesting that there is some constraint At work on the Democrats on the committee Beyond just like we're going to try to adhere to truth and we're GONNA try to adhere to whatever it still exists but I think that there is an amazing sort of back filling of truth happening as you and I are sitting here talking There's here's an attempt and you're seeing growing burgeoning acceptance that this Ukraine theory Ukraine meddled in the two thousand sixteen election that he now we've got Rudy Giuliani doubling doubling down on no. This is really about Joe Biden. This is about actual corruption a willingness to kind of retrofit history to fit This narrative that is actually happening in real time as their impeachment hearings going on. It's extraordinary one thing. I'll say that's that's related to that but slightly distinct is that I think that you're right that there is although ostensibly the major factfinding piece of this preceding has been sort of ended with end of Intelligence Committee hearings. There is action on the ground ground and there may be other shoes to drop part of that has to do with You know these business associates overdue Guiliani who bits both been indicted from an in Parnis. There's I think Ed very non zero chance that some substantial cooperation in the criminal proceedings also involve some potential cooperation in these impeachment proceedings. Things and that we do learn a lot of new facts that shake things up in some way or shake a handful of people lose. I mean water. It happened like very slowly slowly and then all at once and I I do think that while most the most likely scenario is that there's no hugely dramatic reveals that really changed the narrative the kind of trajectory of all this. I think there is a very none zero possibility that that's wrong. Things do change significantly in that even could happen in a Senate like a Senate trial with new witnesses who reveal new information could change things so I just think that the situation is I take the sort of pessimism and nihilism. I'm there with you some of the time but I think that it's a pretty dynamic situation and I don't feel confident that I totally. What do we know how historians before let you go? I I have to circle back to Pam Carlin Because I had the experience watching the hearings on Wednesday that. I suspect you did. You know that at some point I felt my shoulders. Kinda rucking up to my ears again as I did during the cavenaugh hearing and thought to myself off this is yet again. A kind of singular wrath and fury poured upon Woman who speaks and that I want to believe that the joke about you know whether whether Donald Trump should Be Have the power to make his son Barron. You know maybe that was in fact the greatest sin against presidential children in American history We can talk about that but I do think that even absent awesome that there was just a next level antipathy directed at her and I wonder if you just have any thoughts at all all about the ways in which this feels to me like of a piece with Fiona Hill This feels like Lisa page. This feels like a long line of women who have the temerity to walk and breathe and have political voices in America and One I'm hesitant to gender it and I know that you're on strict. Scrutiny is often to be the voice of like no no no no. Let's let's be Temperate but it was hard not to see it Through that Valen. Oh I think it is gendered. I mean I think I think it is also the case that she is Of the witnesses I think that the other three Turley Turley is sort of You know hard to pin down ideologically and I do think that both Feldman and Gerhard are pretty moderate and Pam is not right. I think that she is is as an avowed progressive and uncowed progressive and so to some degree. She's in a slightly different category. Just based based on her substantive views and public positions from the others but the kind of nastiness obviously feels gender to me and does feel peace with and you didn't mention and Ambassador Yovanovic but the president singling out by name during her testimony of Ambassador Yvonne which was totally distinct from anything that happened with respect Winning and I presume that they're at least thinking about including some aspect of that episode in the kind of general obstruction of Congress Article that they're drafting. It seems like at least you know candidate shift talked about witness intimidation in real time. That day So so I do think that there has been a singling out of of the women who have testified in the course of these proceedings in a way that does not feel at all accidental. You know on the barren point I will. I will say that I was a former White House. Lawyer wailers are psycho protective of presidential children. And what happened in general are and they do keep them out of the public eye but but this was not a serious offence against that general principle. It was like a casual joke. That was Quickly you know recanted and And yet what sort of seize upon an amplified in a way that was just like wow the outside and felt quite bad faith to me because it of course required to return to doubling down the kind of re injection of his name team and figure into You know and that's of course the White House doing an amplifying that in a way that felt really inconsistent with this general principle that was ostensibly animating animating which is leave the kids out of this So then it felt like he was just kind of this Cudgel But but I I totally agree that it felt both personal Engendered with Pam. And that's I think irrespective of ideological distinction. You could drop between her and the other witnesses and can you give us thirty seconds on. What what you're looking for in the next couple of weeks? I'm fascinated by the president's response to all this. You know he had this tweet a few weeks ago. which is like I never thought my name would be associated with that ugly word impeachment And of this diet coke is on when he was associated with and and it it struck me that you know he one of I think the president has obviously smashed norms left and right in the course of last almost three years. Now more right campaign to and One of the things I think that has been revealed revealed how central a role shame plays in kind of creating the glue that holds some of these norms. In place. Part of the reason we avoid norm violation or at least flagrant nor violations. Because they'll be some like sort of social sanction. Shame that will attach to doing that. And the president has been largely impervious to that. I think And yet it felt like here. He feels like the impeachment process is getting to him in a way that I was frankly a little surprised as he had. Maybe I'm reading too much into this one tweet. I obviously spent much time thinking about presidential twitter but but this is not something that he is sort of casually laughing off or thinking about how to spend his political advantage. I I think that That he understands on some level Sort of the magnitude of gravity and that there is something actually constructive in that part of the point is symbolic inexpressive. If in fact it's likely to lead to an acquittal in the Senate anyway And so I think that if sending a message as part of what the house things that may be doing if it doesn't believe it's very likely did actually succeed in getting him removed in the Senate his response feels to me like it matters. That's a subtext of some of the testimony. More this will happen more. This could be happening outing now and is it. Does it up the phone right. After the Muller Rate I mean it's it's it's he has he definitely has Appello Vian right. Yeah he's trainable switchers saying I don't know but it feels to me like there is some possibility. And if that's the case that feels like An important dimension of this kind of irrespective of what happens in the Senate how he reacts to this happening as it continues to play out in real time. Kate Shah teaches lot. Cardoza law school where she KOTEREC's Flammer Center for Constitutional Democracy. She worked worked in the Obama. White House counsel's office She is As I keep saying one of those delicious Stephen Clerks that we keep welcoming onto the show She's one of the four extraordinary hosts of strict scrutiny which you should all immediately immediately subscribed to and an ABC impeachment commentator. She's also so an all round brilliant brilliant smart thinker about the court and gave us a Lotta Time Today Kate. Thank you for being with is definitely gonNA add delicious Stevens clerk to like resume. There is a lot thank you so much. This is really fun. I have a little postscript for you dear listeners remember term opener way back When we talk to Dean Erwin Shimransky and we wondered aloud how John Roberts was going to navigate a term that included a staggering number of big ticket blockbuster cases as John Roberts possibly presided over an impeachment trial in the Senate in it? Well there are some clues emerging including From arguments heard this week in a big second amendment case before the court we want to dig in and to that case this week's arguments and put them into a larger context with the rest of the cases that have been heard since October with slates own mark. Joseph Stern learn who has a wonderful book out that is Pretty Germain. It's called American justice. Twenty nineteen the Roberts Court arrives and that will be our very first show of twenty twenty twenty. So if you have questions about John Roberts how. He's handling the cases so far that Gun case in particular or just the fact that the court has bitten offer a lot more than it might be able to chew Mu this term. Send them along to amicus at sleep dot com or find us at facebook dot com slash. amicus podcasts guests. We love your letters. That is a wrap for this episode of amicus. Thank you so much for listening. Today's show was produced by Sarah Birmingham. Gabriel Gabriel Roth is editorial director of slate podcasts and June. Thomas is senior managing producer of slate. PODCASTS we will be back with another episode of Amicus into short leaks and thank you.

president Jonathan Turley Congress Andrew Andrew Johnson Senate bribery Kate Supreme Court Donald Trump President Nixon Michael Gerhardt Supreme Court Carlin Qua- Carlin Noah Feldman Clinton John Paul Stevens Kate Shaw