17 Burst results for "Richard Epstein"

"richard epstein" Discussed on KUGN 590 AM

KUGN 590 AM

03:41 min | 8 months ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on KUGN 590 AM

"90 AM and 98.1 FM station in the world. I'm John Master. I welcome Professor Richard Epstein. Classical liberal, as well as a professor of law at N. Y U and the University of Chicago. He's a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. We are now 20 years younger. And I asked Richard to return to the moment that he first heard of the attack on New York and Washington. Where was he? And what were his first thoughts about a plane flying into the World Trade Center? Richard A. Very good day to you. Where were you, Richard? Good day. Well, I'm going to start an hour or two before the event I was in the Chicago is the University of Chicago, and this was before classes began. So it wasn't a question having large numbers of students around and I was sitting at the breakfast table with my wife. And there was a book review of a book by Bill Ayers, which had just come out that morning and said, sort of trying to parody is what would happen if there's been a mass attack on the United States. And I read this review and I should do and not very comfortable about this kind of a story. And what happens is I go into the law school that they go to my office and do work and what you do is you hear whispers about things going into towers and stuff like that. Then what somebody do is to put a television. We didn't have all this stuff on computers in 2000 and one In the faculty in the student lounge downstairs, people came in and they sat down and they look they got up gas walked away. The next thing that everybody did is that where is my family? It's a perfectly typical response. My daughter worked in New York City at the time, but she was thank Heavens off on a business trip. Somewhere in North Carolina, my niece actually worked on Broadway. Pretty near with all this has happened, and it turned out that she just didn't go into work. Then you found out about some of the other people. And what happened is the first reaction you had that everybody had. Well, the first one was. Can I give blood? I remember my son was at N y u at the time, which meant that he could see this thing and you go out. You're watching the morning. I don't know what to think to do. And so everybody rushes off to give blood And in fact, they all did it. But what you discovered is if they were they were injured. They were dead. And if they were alive, they didn't blood so that this was a kind of a powerful symbolic gesture of concern. But you couldn't do anything. Then you continue to watch a little bit further. And if you remember there was this building across the street. Um, which wasn't hit at all 55 stories or something. But the heat from the particular explosion was so great that what happened is around two or three o'clock in the Afternoon. On television. You can see the entire building just sink down like a pile of sand because it couldn't withstand the particular stresses in question. Then what you did is you had all the second guesses about what was going on. Remember the people who were trapped in the building which killed but so were the fireman who went to the rescue. And one of the things that you discovered is that this was complete miscommunication as to what should it should not be done. And so with this story seemed to be that the fireman. We're going upstairs to try to put out the fires walking the people coming down the stairs, and it was just a fool's errand done in the best of faith by heroic men, But they should have done was just simply pulled. People out of the building do nothing whatsoever to try to stop the inevitable and they probably could have saved another Several 100 lives if they had just been able to do these coordination Then what you did is you think? Well, what about the airplanes on and then you recall this By the time the first one was done, people realize that there's something going wrong and so you see a second one.

Richard Bill Ayers New York City North Carolina 2000 World Trade Center 55 stories New York United States 20 years Chicago Hoover Institution Richard Epstein University of Chicago first Richard A. Washington an hour John Master second one
"richard epstein" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

01:31 min | 2 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"Sure would Rangers yeomanry in their tanks taking casualties all the time but there are lots of replacements and that's one of the overwhelming facts here James I want to spend a moment where how the allies dealt with the Germans the allies had a theory called steel not flash what does that mean this is something that the British kind of adopted will but the fall color war broke out in nineteen thirty nine and yet it was the usual keep Vostell able reach your industrialized nation modernizations mechanized basin to limit the number of people the call by the war and this is where power comes at the mall you can sort of either a trick to enemy by bombing for a double strategic bombing a few accounts do you have to take on the frontline of the battle field John Batchelor weeknights at nine talk radio seventy seven WABC M. S. seventy seven WABC on bachelor show hi John this is John about yourself professor Richard Epstein is here and he has not written about this the WHO's this the case a spin and a significant official head of the WHO's emerging diseases and cirrhosis Maria fender made an announcement within these last that there is data from many sources.

professor Richard Epstein Maria fender Rangers James Vostell John Batchelor M. S. WABC official WHO
"richard epstein" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

05:41 min | 2 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"I'm John I'm not sure so professor Richard Epstein is here and he has not written about the WHO's this case this a significant official head of the WHO's emerging diseases zero Maria fender made the announcement within these last that there is data from many sources these are countries doing pattern tracing of the virus that concludes that a symptomatic suffers of the virus that is you have no symptoms whatsoever do not pass the virus except in very rare instances very rare that term was used on one day we all looked at and go watch what is this about because we've been told yet you can't tell who has the virus we were all so accustomed to the fact that the W. H. O. would reverse itself before so this looks like another reversal okay let's announce that we can go back to work and then and lest you have the symptoms you're likely not to be a person who could pass the virus on the next day the W. H. O. correct the correction by saying well it's not entirely clear what the a symptomatic person does to pass on the disease so we're going to withhold judgment Richard I come to you with the set piece all of this combines to tell me that the first second third and fourth report about the virus are to be reviewed in about ten years that we don't really know where we are inside this fog of virus and there and let me sort of stress with the importance of this finding is if it is true one of the things that you always have to worry about is the propagation in the spread of the virus and the common account which is in broad outline correct is is a kind of a latent phase in which this thing goes back and forth of course people before anybody knows that they have it in the illustration we get this New York in the subway system taking a virus and sending it back and forth to other people this is consistent with the notion that a symptomatic placing of the virus a pass in the viruses troops one of the complications of this however is how is this though since it is something which you did not mention if you look next to somebody for a very long time under circumstances with his direct bodily contact and a lot of sweat and sneezing you can see but then what happens is what you do is you take other settings in which it's less concepts and now you asked whether or not people could pass this thing a symptomatically you know if you don't observe the six foot rule for example which was invented I think out of whole cloth by various American authorities and the answer to that question is this every medical treatment is dose dependent it could well be that both things are true in certain settings this does pass in the a symptomatic phase and in other settings it turns out that it does not well if people know this then when it comes to making future policies you're kind of a little bit nervous about having all these people climb back into the trans again when there's something in the offing but on the other hand if they're basically walking through parks a walking in offices and so forth within our constant bodily contact the six foot rule becomes a complete waste of time and money the mass become unimportant wash your hands don't shake your hand and all the so and you can open a business ninety percent when you see them not making these distinctions as to what circumstances this may or may not be true and then reversing themselves you don't have any idea that their company I mean I'm not a science we have a nanny I mentioned we have a minute go ahead and I'm not a scientist but I do have studied for a long time starting with aids the sort of the pattern by which these things start to move and when would you have to understand that and what is so utterly striking to me about this is that sort of basic rules that you should be able to know about pandemics diseases evolution and so forth I systematically ignored and so it is possible John and the thing is even worse than what you said which is that all of the reports separate issue by the W. H. O. we're wrong in different particulars in different ways and if you're facing the question of whether it's you open up and that turns out to be does since it is I suspect it is then if you call one of the situation the crisis that we really safe if you can keep a lockdown in place until the next flu season starts and then lord knows what will happen we need to change this policy very fast and we have to have people have some degree of sophistication and that does not include the governess who basically decide these things by arbitrary decrees Richard Epstein professor Richard Epstein a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution I'm John bachelor this is the John **** shall well five point nine FM you shouldn't be boring especially with so much uncertainty this idea of the stimulus coming and we wanna all more gold what are they referring to here I'm not are we agreeing with passive learning laugh with yourself on the stacking Benjamins show where there's a money party Joe's mom's basement going on right now please please tell us what should we have to listen and subscribe to the stacking Benjamins show on apple podcasts or wherever you enjoy audio do you feel hopeless withdrawn from life work or your family if you're a burden to everyone around you or.

Richard Epstein professor official WHO
"richard epstein" Discussed on KGO 810

KGO 810

01:51 min | 3 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on KGO 810

"As he's other things coming climbing down upon these. I don't envy them. If generally speaking is easier to maintain a public relations position, if you're not a company that supplies things to to the public laws. So, you know, for example, it was his recent lawsuits that takes place between Qualcomm and apple everybody knows about apple most people don't know about Qualcomm. So they have very different kinds of situations. If you're talking about drug companies, and you're five and your cell by Agra and yourself Lipitor with everybody knows who you are. If you're Abby via what you do is you make biologic drug that used by point one percent of the population public doesn't know about you because you're not in the direction supermarket so trying to figure out how you run one of these things is a huge problem. And all I can say is like a law. Professor, I can tell you what the relevant variables. But I can't decide weight since I'm a little bit reluctant to second. Guess any company when they with this kind of speaking with professor Richard Epstein, a senior felt over institution teaches law NYU. And the university of Chicago I mentioned quickly as we started that there were prominent voices in the Democratic Party chiefly calling for more extreme remedies against Facebook than fines and women. Come back. We'll begin with Elizabeth Warren what she wants for Facebook. And then we'll also mentioned that there are other possibilities. Antitrust remedies mentioned by a Rhode Island chair of the house subcommittee on entrance commercial administrative law. David says league, I'm John Batchelor. This is the John Batchelor show. You're listening to John Batchelor. This.

John Batchelor Qualcomm Professor Facebook Elizabeth Warren apple Agra Richard Epstein Abby NYU Rhode Island university of Chicago Democratic Party David one percent
"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

Uncommon Knowledge

04:03 min | 3 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

"And I hope we do have a big fight over because hopefully, I don't like big fights. But if they were fights. Like to be over Madison. Principal taking fidelity to the constitution as the criterion answer. This the state of the federal bench the state of the supreme court above all. And the state of American legal education, the state of law schools in the course of your careers have things gotten better or worse, Richard. It's complicated at the top. It's gotten better that is court or no I'm talking about legal education, right? The supreme court. Which is lots more talented gifted people in cadavers today than ever before. I think at the top, but the average at the top loss. No. I mean, the top people in terms of publication, influence or ability. It's very strong record show. Richard is one of the top three most influential. Well, but I don't even care about that. But I think what's the average quality is going down. And I think it's become much more politicized. Yeah. That's what I would have said actually, I think compared to when I started which was much much later than Richard nineteen. Let's show. So. So I think the the top ten law schools, the ideological composition of schools and universities has become heavily skewed to the impossible there. Another never that was fifty fifty balance. But there was a good debate is KOMO much worse. The less for the to the left in many cases, and the density politics is taken over I go to some workshops at various places, and I cannot believe what I see what I hear and the pressures of simply norms. But on the other hand said I could end every year, you could find five or ten people going into this business who were terrific. And so. Meaning. No, I I don't even John Cass more about the originalism than I do. I care more about intellect Rome riparian Roman. That's. I worry about private law subjects and so forth. I'm not a fulltime constitutional lawyer. And some of these people are really great. They're very good appearances to have strong sense of theory that you witnessed a restoration of correct thinking, no other way, it's the other way around probably the profession is eighty five percents. So the rest of your question about the bench, the government, that's all downstream of culture and education, so cultural education getting worse and worse as I think they are. Unfortunately, the results next ten twenty thirty years are going to flow downstream to our institutions me pessimistic. I don't know how you're out dimissed. Well, let me tell you this because the The list. list list of twenty then those twenty are outliers. No point I disagree with you look at the students, they're not as far left as the faculty all the federal societies enormously powerful socializing institution. And so every year coming out of American more schools there one or two thousand students at the very least to bury sound education backgrounds and go into practice. You take story. The great thing about America. Unlike Asia Americans hate their parents. America, right. The re what's going on is our youth. Our students are reacting negatively to all the liberal professors and elders just take the. Just take two law firms in Washington, which have had all Mus influence lately Jones day and Gibson Dunne got it. They are just filled with smart smart, people many of them. Happy to say, my former students who are very anxious to positions. Well one. I am proud about. I've, you know, they're the huge number of people on that list, where university of Chicago people what people from this with I've worked very closely and the same thing with these kids are absolutely fabulous..

Richard supreme court America Principal Rome riparian Roman Madison John Cass KOMO university of Chicago Gibson Dunne Washington Jones ten twenty thirty years
"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

Uncommon Knowledge

03:18 min | 3 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

"He was actually proposing someone he thought would be easily confirmed and we'll be a consensus pick after what happened Cavanaugh. He has no incentive to do that. He'll pick one of the much more conservative people. So that will also Travolta fudge bear. I think she's one of the most conservative people, and when you see conservative you mean returning to the original understated. The answer is they were crazy to go. After cabinet was completely on reflects they denounced before they looked at anything that it happened. She is a very cool customer. They won't be able to rattle her in the same way. And they won't be able to find in sort of these personal elements in the high beer-drinking casting. And that's the way they got him. Right, right. I mean, they didn't get him. When this thing was just a straight legal struggle. I mean, he pushed them away a bunch of little flies, you know, with the big fly swatter. It's only when they managed to get that miss Boise hole that this whole thing started to go crazy. And she was to some extent you get into doing. This theory was that they announced the threat that he would then back out. And then when they forced the thing there he made a big mistake. I would've made it to he lost his cool when asked to comment on what she had done. He was told to do that to some extent. But I yeah. Yeah. But but to some extent, yes when you're supposed to go. Pulled it off by the skin of none of that would happen to. Oh, why don't I think they'll try though, you remember her confirmation hearing the won't work Dianne Feinstein said sweeter died dogma stock must does. That does not work that will they will try versa. Background is. Look salacious sex is one thing, but trying to get somebody to have religious beliefs wolf, and so many people that came with just two or three votes beating cabin. I understand that again because I don't want her to try. They're all right. But I don't believe they can do it on religious last question. In your heart of hearts, are you hoping it's on the other side. Future. Switch you please. This is this is a serious what I do for living. This is what we get paid for this. Well. What you get in your heart of hearts, are you hoping for Justice Ginsburg to step down before the next election or after the Cavanaugh debacle? Would you rather? Would you rather spare the country that kind of battle? I don't think we're gonna have any choice. Same. I think these battles are actually good for the country the court in the constitution because the battle was good for us in the end because it defined what things are about defined the stakes people think the court support for this reason. Or that reason we think it was revealed the lengths that liberals are going to go to try to destroy people. I think on groundless Spacey's and the benefits are having justices who call the constitutional balls and strikes who are trying to restore the original meaning of the competition. I think that's really point. I think that message still gets through to the country. So yes, I hope Justice Ginsburg retires. I hope Trump what's up one of his more conservative originalist judges..

Cavanaugh Justice Ginsburg Dianne Feinstein Travolta Boise Spacey Trump
"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

Uncommon Knowledge

04:11 min | 3 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

"She had a couple of cancerous growths removed from her lungs when does it become the duty of Justice to step down constitutionally judgment. My view. I think it affects she's. That goes for law. Professor, I don't believe that she can ever have the strength sit on the bench and perform a regular news. She's an old friend. I mean, I wish you well. But I think in effect that the Cumulus nature of these operations is terrible. If she doesn't get chemotherapy radiation, disturbance could welcome back. If she does get it as likely to kill her. I just don't think she's in a position to work anymore. It's not at all argument. And she's somehow they're allowed to vote on the case series change in policy this practice that I agree. I think that shows she can't do the job and should step that John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation, quote when Neil Gorsuch was the nominee. You were replacing conservative Scalia with a conservative with Cavanaugh, you're replacing the perennial swing voter Kennedy who more times than not cited with the so-called conservative wing. But if you were replacing Justice Ginsburg with a Trump appointee Trump nominee it should. I think that would be akin to replacing Thurgood Marshall legendary liberal with Clarence Thomas, legendary conservative correct for my Clifton interests full disclosure Thomas, not Marshall, I think actually it'll be somewhat. I think the political forces. Yes, will treat it that way. I think as a matter of constitutional doctrinal be anti-climactic because I think conservatives have five oats this'll be the six vote. But I think liberal interest groups will Cavanaugh was like spring training compared to what they're gonna do to try to stop whoever Richards view, the Justice Ginsburg is likely to be forced to retire now before the presidential see how she can last year. Neither do I what I'm trying to get to you would both agree as a matter of political prediction that we're in the cavenaugh thing would is small comparison with no go ahead. Well, I think. Trump will do the nominative woman and that they get. Amy, Amy, we stick with his list hours certain doesn't change very strong? He's a wonderful person. And it turns out the Democrats try to line which will surely backfire on them saying that no Catholic is fit to sit on the United States Supreme court because of their religious beliefs in alliance Inc, quite say like that. But it seems. On now with the knights of Columbus. And all the rest of this stuff. I think that's a terrible line. She's a wonderful woman. She's an extremely smart professor, and she's a great judge. So what said this lie and you can't play the sex call on her. You can't do that. I hope not having children. The interesting thing is to telling my liberal friends all three of them time. I live off. Fences. If you look at Trump's list Cavanaugh was the list so someone can during the primaries a lot of conservative distrustful of Trump, and he's running about even with Ted Cruz. I think it was at the time and Trump is brilliant, political masterstroke unprecedent heat said conservative. I've got a list of ten people give it to me by feral society and the Heritage Foundation, and I promise to pick Justice from that list, and that was a huge sign and a lot of religious conservative went over Tim at that point. And he never was he never lost leading polite. Heard the two of you record in a record one of your law talk podcast, recording both of you approved of every single name on that list of tents and amazing. And and now Nelson's becoming president. He's added another ten names approve of all twenty pretty much John. I think they're very one of the thing. The. Was the most moderate one on that list? Chef so I mean Trump in a weird way was trying to put out an olive branch. It's hard to read it this way. After what happened?.

Trump Justice Ginsburg Cavanaugh professor Heritage Foundation John Malcolm Nelson Professor Thurgood Marshall Clarence Thomas Neil Gorsuch Scalia Amy Columbus United States Tim Ted Cruz Kennedy alliance Inc
"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

Uncommon Knowledge

04:12 min | 3 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

"So there's so many issues, and so many cross-currents me thinks speaks to soon to say it's going to be a solid court. It's very clear that I think was Ginsburg will not be able to surf a health reasons for to that in a moment we come to. But that would change your truly conservative supreme court. I tend to have a more optimistic view of chief Justice Roberts. I was very disappointed in ObamaCare cases where he joined liberals to appalls. But chief Justice was he had hard job, which is maintaining a five Justice majority, one of whom was Justice Kennedy, and so he had to play this role. Now, he could be freed now that of having a very potentially liberal Justice in his coalition. And now this might give him the freedom to really start restoring the original constitution, which is time will tell but now we can see the real John Roberts come out not the one who's been the political question. You both know how to think about this. I'm not even sure I can formulate the question, but. The as it. Here's in the position of chief Justice, a certain duty simply to hold things together to be conservative in the Etima logical sense of the word to conserve what we have chose choose who upheld in deal. And who was who was your who was a conservative. But conservatives he was the one who brought the whole thing down. He can basically what? I guess what? I'm asking is how much intellectual slack you cut the chief Justice. So I don't but most pop little scientists say, oh, yeah. He's the chief Justice has to be concerned about politics, and wherever I think, I hope Richard's with me on this. I think a lot of conservative scholars say just call the balls and strikes stop worrying about President Obama saying about you or Senator Leahy just say is this constitutional what the politics take care of. He's had a point if the court had not backed down in the face of the overwhelming political support that FDR head. We could have fifteen justices on this. I hughes. I think I think I think you're wrong about this. Let me explain why I'm just asking. But with a certain degree of which is undeserved. You're wrong. Just for asking fumes was on the court twice. And it was on between nineteen ten and nineteen sixteen before he got off. That was the good Hughes that was early, but he was not necessarily good use the key case on labor relations than was a case called comedy Kansas in which. Fifteen you'd never versus kids to thirty six US number one. Oh my God. This is the case which held essentially a statue employees had the right the fire. It will any worker and therefore stop mandatory collective bargaining Hughes wrote a berry, muddy concurrence on this which I go along with the result on an opinion, which is almost incomprehensible nineteen thirty when the way labor Iraq comes up. He announces that his concurrence in the earlier case was really the law. And so that there wasn't a strong anti collective bog in the animus, and then in nineteen thirty seventy writes the opinion, which does it. But remember the case had been decided by three courts now below three circuit courts, all which unanimously struck down the National Labor Relations act as beyond the power of congress and Hughes turn this thing around. It would not have been a people because that statute was mentally unpopular at the time on that particular issue that may have been on other stuff. But I don't think the labour statue would have been able to push this thing over the top lost sire century. Struggle to back to twenty nineteen. Hughes ran for president political. And he's not the person should be chief Justice. And I think Roberts pays too much attention to politics too. And he frankly, I think Obama, you know, politically be hell out of them on a bomb. Karen got exactly what he wanted. That's why justices should not keep their ion politics because they're going to be easily deceived. Him being by true professional politicians back to Ruth Justice, Ruth, Bader Ginsburg, eighty five years old just a few weeks ago..

Justice Roberts Hughes Justice Kennedy Senator Leahy President Obama John Roberts Bader Ginsburg Ruth Justice National Labor Relations FDR US Iraq president Karen Richard Kansas congress eighty five years
"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

Uncommon Knowledge

04:13 min | 3 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

"The rank was depends pure apology. He gets every the majority of wrote a Giardi opinion healthy. Saying that he's got all sorts of control over they have all sorts of control over him the control they had was gossamer. Then they didn't even get to point. This guy was appointed in a cross situation with justices in the supreme court on C circuit DC, circuit got to a point these people. I do not believe that cross branch appointments constitutional. Do you think highly of Robert Muller, you think he has duly followed his brief still in all do you wish that he had never been appointed that we've just do away with special and independent counsels? Forever. No, I actually for different reasons. So one is it disrupts the unitary control of prosecution under the president, which the constitution requires. But there's another reason I think actually if you don't like Trump if you're Trump critic as as offers resignation on this first day in office. So if you don't like Trump, there's still reason why you shouldn't like the special counsel statute, if your SE Pelosi in a way, you shouldn't like it either. Because what the special counsel statute does like the administrative state generally is transfers the real responsible in the constitution, which is in congress under the impeachment power and shifts to some unaccountable independent agency here the special counsel or the independ- council, so congress washes its hands of the whole thing they say, oh if. The presence doing bad things if he's committing high crimes and misdemeanors Moehler will take care of it, which not our job actually under the constitution. The branch that's responsible for controlling the presence abuses of power is the house into the patient power in the Senate can remove him. But we don't talk about it that much because everyone so focused on Muller. That's just like what the way our government works in lots of other areas. The reason why against Li's opinion was his finest moment as at the special counsel is like the epitome of the administrative state, generally and the distortion to our constitution that's been taking place the thirties. So get rid of that it may congress do its job those another way which which brings me on sorry over your left shoulder clock. Oh, and you can't see it. But I can't next that you're. John just mentioned for the first time since the thirties. Let me which brings us onto brief discussion of the high court John you writing not long ago national review after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, but before the confirmation of Justice Cavanaugh with a fifth conservative Justice. John wrote the last remaining branch of the federal government will have slipped away from liberal hands little fast. They're just took the house of representatives and two of the four liberal justices on the court are in their eighties, Ruth, Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Rier, Steven briar, but he's healthy for the first time in about eight decades. The country may have a truly conservative supreme court Justice Kennedy is gone just as Cavanaugh is in his place. Do we have a conservative supreme not? If we have chief Justice John Roberts. Why? Because on the two ages city, Richard. Well, think about the Affordable Care. Act and whether or not he was the person who managed to do this and think about the contraceptive mandates and stuff in the funding. He has held by the court held by the court by John Roberts because of his vote only because of his votes. So I think ineffective no Robertson's at different kinds of conservative. He's don't rock the boat kind of guy. He's not somebody like Gorsuch who has a very strong ideological conception of what the original founding read wanted and was prepared to do it. Sometimes they'll get together on particular cases. Sometimes no there is no question that rob was to the right of Kennedy by some respectable, but not huge margin. It's also the case, by the way that people will be surprised by capital because I think he's probably a bit further to the left, then people actually think I don't regard this left of center, but more so and Gossage has a very strong anti-government streak in him, which has been evidenced by his willingness to write opinions on various police cases, which he gets the concurrence of one Sonia. Soda my off..

Justice John Roberts Justice Anthony Kennedy special counsel Robert Muller Justice Cavanaugh congress Trump Pelosi Li Richard Gossage Moehler Robertson federal government president Gorsuch Senate rob Affordable Care
"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

Uncommon Knowledge

01:54 min | 3 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

"There've been nine highly publicized investigations a source of constant political damage to two administrations the mini executive that is the independent counsel is intentionally cut off from the unifying influence of Justice department. And from the perspective that multiple responsibilities provides independent counsel statute should be held on constitutional Scalia argued because governmental investigation prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function. And because the whole object of the statute is to deny the president exclusive control over and exclusively executive function close quote. I know the independent counsel statute is a different matter from the special counsel, which is a special counsel. Still in all is not the special counsel, Robert Muller's investigate. Nation further confirmation of the wisdom and constitutional correctness of Mr Justice, Antonin Scalia thousand nine hundred eight to set his finest hour as they used to say, really amazing. I've never got. Look I disagree with school you on huge numbers of issues like everybody else. But I think when he said this vice versa. With asked. Byzantine? He said that the the best one that he ever had was he said, you know, this is a wolf coming in wolf's clothing. He got it. Exactly. Right. The what got this thing on the wrong foot is everybody says that conflicts of interest dangerous, but total separation is not the way to handle a conflict of interest because then you get reckless independence. But you have to do is to manage conflicts of interest. And they used to do that in the Justice department by setting up special arrangements week walls, and so forth between the person who's doing the investigation and the rest of the department, and what happened is the worst opinion on this..

Antonin Scalia special counsel Justice department executive Mr Justice Robert Muller president
"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

Uncommon Knowledge

03:55 min | 3 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

"And so the question is are they inconsistent with respect to this aborted off the end and the answer is. Yes. But that's there. Stealing my charges that the things that follow out from the questions. How broadly read it? But if it turns out that you now know that all the documents that we use in order to launch this investigation. We're pained into fashion understand why they did this by the way, they got several ones on the basis of stuff that wasn't very good. Then they want to continue the investigation in order to continue investigation. You have to persuade the FIS accord that there's some new information that yet they don't have any new information. So they use to steal dusty. And they try to obscure by saying this is not the only thing that was involved because of all the other stuff that we presented with respect to the earlier thing. But this was the doer died document, if you ever look at that particular documents garbage. I mean, it looks like full scap. It looks like a sixth grader writing something about his ex or something it's juvenile, and you can't believe that document on the face of the record. Even if you knew nothing else about the background just looking at the way, it's set on the paper. So a lot of people have a lot for which answer, and they are being made to answer for it. Just not in the two layer. All right little too. But by the way, I don't want to spend too much time on this. Because you both seem to agree that the cupboard is bare Muller's not likely, you're feeling as Muller's not likely to come forward with anything terribly. Anything questions can sitting president indicted? No, I don't think so either. Oh, I thought that was that was I thought that was a more interesting question than the two of you think what is very interesting question. But. It's one side. Just pretty clear a really the framing the this was a question actually came up during the ratification the constitution and Hamilton said in the federals papers. Well, I you impeach him. And then you indict them, but you don't do it. The other way, I see let me whatever happened. Is in charge of explain what could say don't indict the old king can do. No harm. Yeah. That's the sovereign immunity point. But the difficulties impeachment. There's only one body that can do if you were -ssume that the president cannot fire everybody who's against you've got how many district attorney's out there, and you have thirty people in thirty different districts dieting him then you can have guys from the state who underneath a control bringing suits against him in state court for indictments the other thing, you can't run a country that and so you have to do is to centralize the process and then once he's out of office. You don't have the impediments to office that come from multiple indictments, and then everybody can go. So your argument is not only that he may not be indicted at a at the federal level. You're is that the attorney general of New York cannon know, clearly clearly enough, I actions president icy he indicted for things he did before sitting President High you'd have to wait to do the trial. I don't even think it's the trial. The only thing I think you could do if you want to bring even a civil suit against the president. And that's to you get off at the reserve documents. And you get an order to suspend the statute of limitations. I thought I that's I thought that you should not have allowed the deposition of Bill Clinton because my viewers poses. I think it's more dangerous deposition than it is a trial and everybody else who's a lawyer tends to agree and after peach four, right? Assign best the greatest TV moment in the history of mankind. The highest ratings will we when Muller deposes Trump on live television more people watch than the Super Bowl. The Trump can say at the end to and now you're fired greatest history of television. Boys Justice, Antonin Scalia in his nineteen Eighty-eight cent in the independent counsel case of Morrison versus Olsen quote in the ten years since the independent counsel was established by law..

Muller president Muller deposes Trump Antonin Scalia Bill Clinton federals New York Hamilton attorney Morrison Olsen ten years
"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

Uncommon Knowledge

03:47 min | 3 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

"Because that's how he got into that office. When everybody had resigned said, Bob, you have to stay and will defend you from manning the ship, and then the double cross all right, but okay. More on on on the Muller investigation. The cupboard may or may not be fair. But we know what Muller has been investigating right? We know he's been investigating Donald Trump and members of his presidential campaign. The Wall Street Journal the other day did a very nice job of summing up. What else we know? We know that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired fusion GPS which hired an intelligence gun for hire Christopher Steele to write a dossier on Trump's supposed links to Russia. Mr. Steele fed that uncorroborated document to the FBI and the F B I relied almost exclusively on the unproven Clinton financed accusations to obtain fuck four five warrants, Mr. Muller seems uninterested close quote now. You may say that it's no nobody, but Fox News pounding away on this. But that's the Wall Street Journal, and there are sixty two million Americans who voted for Donald Trump, and I put it to you that what we see with Muller investigation proceeding and total lack of interest by the Democrats Muller and the mainstream press in known and grave violations that the FBI went to Pfizer court using trumped up evidence. Paid for by the opposing presidential campaign is outrageous. I think unserious damage has been done to the sense of Justice the highest love, I have John come do you in a moment. See ready to? War. You wait. The problem is, you know, someone who worked in the Justice department and a lot of faith in the people who worked there. I was shocked to read all these a lot shock. I was I wish I mean, I hang out with Richard. I'll never shocked, but this shocked me and on the Muller bed style of throwing them. This is not within the ambit- of Muller's investigation. So to correct all this has to me through other proceedings and look at the rogues gallery of the people responsible who I think were misusing Justice apartment resources to try to affect an election. And did what you're never supposed to do is watch these things to affect the presidential campaign. And that's you know, that's like the third rail in prosecutorial ethics. And so what look at all the people all Komi. He's gone. He's fired McCabe his deputy. He's been fired Stroszeck fired page for so slowly. But surely that house is getting cleaned. But it's not big profile. Is he said, it's the Democrats care. Director Chris Wray, and so you think quietly he's going about restraints during for that job. He is cleaning. Doing that bar. We'll do the same effect. That's if Bill this is should be the top of the first thing about this really wanna clean house. You have to any information. That was gathered by any of the people who were fired cannot be used and he's used all of that stuff and this whole unit nearly as. No, I'm not. Talk about his previous camp campaign may be an example. You should not have taken this job. He didn't do right. What John is referring to a look at the authorisation. It's crooked authorization. What it says we are in time those authorization. Investigate the influence of Russia on the Trump can. Did not say the Clinton campaign. But it said you could follow up from that other things that you discovered so they use that to get Manfred in two thousand and seven, but they don't use it to get Hillary..

Mr. Muller Donald Trump Hillary Clinton The Wall Street Journal Russia John Justice department Richard FBI Fox News Christopher Steele Bob manning Bill Democratic National Committee Chris Wray Komi Stroszeck Manfred
"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

Uncommon Knowledge

04:25 min | 3 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

"To fire the current the director. Yes. Fire somebody and put somebody into place who with whom we make a deal that he would not be prosecuted it will start to look very seamy. But on the facts of this particular case, a casual conversation where it seems quite likely Trump's listen slim guy, by the way, and it turns out I think is the case that Trump believed that he had done nothing wrong. The not only is this not interference with Justice. It's a perfectly responsible exercise of executive power to mortems. Sorry dot cut me off in mid sense. He will. Right. Tumour items. Again. I'm just going to this'll take a moment or two to set up. But I think he'll prove interesting Seth item ones. That's in the Wall Street Journal the day before bar begins. His hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary committee, quote will attorney general nominee William bar promise. Not to fire special counsel, Robert Muller. If he does this acephalous key, President Trump should withdraw the nomination for a special counsel constitutional at all the president has to be able to fire him if Mr. bar vowed not to fire Mr. Muller he'd be undercutting Mr. Trump from day one close quote item to from the Wall Street Journal reporting on bars testimony before the Senate couple days ago, Mr. bar repeatedly promised to allow special counsel Robert Muller's probe to proceed to its conclusion. He said he would he would refuse a hypothetical or for Mr. Trump to fire Mr. Muller now quoting bar. I will not be bullied into doing anything said Mr. bar close quote. Okay. What do we make of this? I think is the appropriate response is not to give any commitment because I think nobody who receives an executive office can have conflicting loyalty to be honored to congress. I think confirmation as an all in nothing processor. You take the guy you take all of me as they used to say in the song not part of what they're doing. But on the other hand. So so you're with lips. No, I'm not with Steph lately for the following reason. He doesn't have to say it is perfectly clear that an effort to file Muller at this particular point in time as was Seidel, and my political Trump politically suicide and not only that the guy seems to have nothing in the cupboard. And so the real question is if you wanna fire this guy is going to blab and all sorts of knows let them file report. The interesting story today what you did not inform is will bar make this report public wants. It comes out. I think the answers he has to make public because my guess is that the cupboard is bad. I have no doubt that the Russians are collusively horrible in anything. They do but collusive with Trump. I don't think they've gotten near. We're doing anything. And there are a lot of other people try to find that connection. John. So I agree almost fully with Richardson. Stop the clocks thought, let's record this moment in your little book. Of the guests. So I two points. One is I think Richard's right? That actually Trump were smart embar were smart. The best thing to do. It would be more finish the report. And from everything we know mother doesn't seem to have any evidence that Trump the president of the candidate himself colluded with low level fools in the campaigns low level Manafort the campaign manager have been colluding years beforehand. He's starting to sound like he was colluding during the campaign or sharing campaign data with the. Bad thing to do. Tenure professor. I know it's that are great papers. And I'll take this over grading papers. And then the second point is from the political perspective. The best thing in the world for the Trump presidency would be for Muller to clear him after all the defending that the Democrats and Trump's opponents have done of mullet rayson up into a Saint if the Saint blesses Trump and all that is dead. So but putting the putting that aside the constitutional issue. I think actually, you're right. I think the president has the constitutional authority to fire Mueller. In fact, he can't be a prosecutor in the executive branch unless Trump has out of thirty now bar can say I'm not going to carry out that order, you find them Trump FARs bar that we go right back through Dixon, and well, then the questions that we don't have booked around anymore..

Mr. Trump Robert Muller William bar executive Mr. bar Wall Street Journal president special counsel Senate Judiciary committee director Democrats Senate Steph prosecutor Richardson congress attorney John Richard
"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

Uncommon Knowledge

04:43 min | 3 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

"Oh, they'll they'll reach a deal. This is all posturing. I mean, there's money. Seven billion dreamers. The Steelers legalize the dreamers of the kids who were brought here illegally. But as children by their parents in exchange for X amount of money for the wall. It's just the predicting emergence of normal politics. It has to because of both sides are going to start getting blaze. So, you know, right now people are arguing whose gameplay more my pressure from past shows at some point the American people are going to blame everybody. Yeah. And then they're gonna wanna make you hear what this is Shakespeare play on both your. William bar William Barr served as a Torney general under president, George H W Bush. He must've been child attorney general young now President Trump is nominated bar to become Torney general once again to items listen to two items item one William bar and special counsel. Robert Muller are such close personal friends that their wives have attended a bible study group together and Muller has attended the weddings of three of bars daughters item to last June William bars admitted to the Justice department and unsolicited twenty page memorandum in the words of the Wall Street Journal bars memo quote, excoriated special counsel, Robert Muller's inquiry into obstruction of Justice by Mr. Trump for firing FBI director James Comey saying it is based on a quoting William bar fatally misconceived theory that would cause lasting damage. To the executive branch closed quote. Well, if you're a member of the Senate Judiciary committee listening to William bar testify. What are you to make of this on the one hand? He's best buddies with Robert Muller on the other hand on his own without being asked. He sent in twenty pages tacking, Robert Muller as special counsel, John. So I it's not surprising. They might be friends. When bar was attorney. General Muller was the head of the criminal division under bar. So he'll bar trusted him to actually run all criminal federal criminal prosecutions in the country. When he was that baby attorney general there's Muller's I think admirable guy marine platoon here Vietnam after he'd been the criminal division. He went to make money, and he hated it. And we went back to doing posecutor street little prosecutor and he's famous in Justice department land because if you would call him he would just answer the phone and say Muller homicide. He the guy had been one of the top. Figures that just part, and he just went back down to being a ground little prosecute. So lot of people's Justice department world, really admire Muller, including bar the second point. I agree with you too to do you find him in? He's an admirable guy. And I think the mission be why? So I'm complete but the signals I fully agree with bar said in his memo, I think that Muller if he is doing this investigation in this way is going too far by saying the presidencies of his constitutional power too far, the FBI director on which I think Trump had many grounds to fire Komi, but that cannot be in my view obstruction of Justice by itself because the president has a constitutional right to remove without explaining himself. Could give any reason or no reason the question's gonna give bad recent what people doing on the other side. Look, I have no idea about their personal friendships. But it seems like everybody in Washington. A position of power knows everybody else in Washington in a position of power. But I regard the selection of mullet to take that positions that dreadful choice becau-. He's too much of an inside of making judgments over his friends or his enemies. And so I thought they had a lousy choice for special counsel matter. How admirable conflicts to great? If teen Jim comb is going to be somebody who's going to get involved in this investigation. They've been close friends you can't do. And then once the thing came out with struts page. I think he'd page the FBI the Trump is in the FBI office who now he fired them, but he used their work. And you cannot do the latter under these circumstances that work is tainted as the two people so forth to the poison tree. Yes, that's right by God. You do Doni. Hey. I did not realize. Not only that into over run me. Yes. But I think the conflict is to acute I think that there can be form of obstruction of Justice in rare cases by dismissing an attorney general, but it's extremely difficult to make that case out because of the following you have to prove that the president knew for example, that Flynn was guilty and knew that if he were.

Robert Muller William bar President Trump General Muller special counsel FBI Justice department president attorney Muller William Barr Steelers Jim comb John Wall Street Journal director George H W Bush William
"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

Uncommon Knowledge

03:56 min | 3 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

"The last continuing resolution December twenty first I think it was permits the government to pay bills that were would come due within the next thirty days that get you through a month. Ownby has issued a legal finding that unfunded agencies may continue operations support necessary or mandatory agencies so social security checks continue to go out tax refunds will be paid. All of that. Now, great time to be audited because won't be happening because you're going to separate himself the top. This. So in general, the question is is the Trump administration acting lawfully and legally to make this shutdown as painless as it can or that's which is Kim strassel view here. I believe that's fair to say or critics are saying, wait a minute. There's just using loop holes it's up to congress to appropriate funds Congress's refused. The funds the government shutdown should be much more obvious and painful, John. So first of all parts of the garment are fully funded because unlike usual years where there's omnibus were all the spending the garment is one Bill, right? This time, and this is the Republicans in congress from the last cars pass a number of individual corporation bills. So parts of the garment our funding. It's not a complete shutdown like in the past. I actually the way they reverting to earlier practice. Yes. That's the way traditionally have been to eighty until the Reagan administration when democratic congressman to shoveled spending down President Reagan's throat they would accumulate onto one billon dare him to veto it. So we're we're very backpacks are open constructs talking about our bandaids in the in the important areas. You could keep this going on for few week ninety few weeks maybe few days, but the essential functions of government are gonna run out you do need congress to pass a Bill sooner rather than three. It's going to start to her budget. People see us elect week tears as to sage who are being forced to work without pay are gonna stop showing up to work. They're gonna start. That's when you're p the functions can only go on certain period of time. I've been I've had my paycheck when I was in the government suspended. I also worked in congress when Gingrich shut down the government, and it just keep the one that long because constitutionally need, the congress to refill the coffers, and that's not happening. Now, whether happens is they've also brought a lawsuit claim USA takings to him the work in pay. And you know, this is not an unattractive claim getting something for nothing with the taking schools to some extent designed to prevent and you'll three years later, we could resolve that lawsuit in thority fashion. This will not be resolved lyrically we saw politically one of the things I like to say and this was true about the steel seizure case. This was not a national -mergency in the strong sense. Because there's a lot of steel that have been stockpiled. You can't stockpile services. So if you shut down say the fact that I've got myself fifteen tickets admiring little. I never thought. Pile. That's good. That was the key finding if you actually went back on the record, which Wyatt is that the steel seizure strike was overrated the way in which these things work is unions, get their overtime pay in advance and the companies get their extra supplies, and then it's only when those things start to run down that you get into Goshi -ation. But when they shut down the New York City subway system on January first on January first nine AM was chaos. And so if this thing goes to the point where those guys shut down from record this it's getting on toward month. So a week two weeks from now it will really start doing. I'm important, by the way. I mean, I have personal requested the president. He's got that on his list. The train back from Portland the who've person I in a week or two it'll be over. I mean, I think that the..

Congress President Reagan government Ownby Kim strassel Trump USA president Bill Portland thority congressman Wyatt John Gingrich New York City thirty days three years
"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

Uncommon Knowledge

04:36 min | 3 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

"There was no statute kit. Thomas Jefferson during the Aaron Burr conspiracy Lincoln this one really get Richard. Yes. DR in four years into the great depression declared, a national emergency the banks. Yes. On the back. And so you had presence declare national emergencies Truman during FDR on the over again in nineteen seventy congress said we're gonna pass up call the national emergencies act up. So they didn't they had the opportunity to say national emergency is only ABC or has this characteristics. They didn't they just said when the president declared a national -mergency he has to public. That's it. So congress had its chance limited. The problem but slightly different question. President Trump just receives John news advice. Go ahead declare national emergency. He does it who has standing to stop him. This is an interesting question. So no, no. This is one of the great dilemmas of standing lawyers. Have nobody has standing does. Everybody have standing. But if there's somebody, for example, who gonna lose a contract virtue of the fact that money's going to be diverted from his project that person would under traditional definitions have that and to give you yet another illustration case if he referred to the steel seizure case back in nineteen fifty two Truman did. He did declare some kind of emergency. And he did seize the mind, and he was rebuffed by the courts who said that this was not sufficient under who student who took him to what it was the steel companies at that team companies young they did it and they want now they won on three or four different measures. The most important of these was the ja- Robert Jackson opinion, and what he said is where the president is acting pursuant to authorization by congress. He's very spine shape where he's going into the teeth of congress season, very low, Ed, and it's where silent is in the middle is this which kind of cases, this is probably a low ebb case because we went back to the steel seizure cases. One of the arguments that moved to Justice black was you had a chance congress to settle this thing up correctly when the delay management Relations Act to deal with emergency strikes and shutdowns and so forth, and you didn't take and this was read is essentially saying that congress had rejected what was going on. And with miss Pelosi screaming at the top of a long. I think he's. At serious risk may be an argument. The house of representatives has standing it may will be that they congress could try to stop it. But Texas rancher who's Lennon's kids taking Bill well that would have. I mean, you'll get you'll get over the standings pay just compensation. He doesn't have cry. Yes. But of course, you know, Trump to that New York real estate developer, doesn't domain. So national emergency turns out to be murky. Okay. Got that. That's why it's not a davick now. He may be not an okay, he may be better points. No courts going to I think reverse finding a national mercy corps ever. Even these lower courts that have. Reverse there'll be some judge out here in San Francisco or LA or Hawaii who might try to join it. But the supreme court. I don't think is. The lower court judge to say, I'm substituting my judgment. What's going on in the border for what's national? They look unprecedented. I mean, the Hawaiian versus Trump case where the president was on much stronger. Ground was five to four and it easily could have gone the other way. What saved Trump into those circumstances is that there was an exhaustive internal review throughout all branches of government to reaffirm travel bans, which have been initiated Barranco bomb. This is absolutely unilateral the president to standing on his own. So I can see this going nine zero in the other direction or five four in this way. So that all right. Robert brings everybody to the other side on the grounds. They didn't do the proper process that would be larger slightly wider bore question here. Kim strassel in the Wall Street Journal reports this administration unlike previous administrations when there were government shutdowns, it was Republicans in congress forcing the shutdown and the executive wanted to make the shutdown as painful, politically painful as possible. So they slam shut American national parks so forth. And in this case, the Trump administration the print the administration wants to make it as painless as possible. And Kim strassel writes in the Wall Street Journal, it turns out that the law provides some useful flexibility when intimate station cares to use it..

congress Trump president Truman ABC Robert Jackson Kim strassel Wall Street Journal Thomas Jefferson Aaron Burr supreme court Pelosi FDR Richard Bill New York Hawaii Ed
"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

Uncommon Knowledge

03:53 min | 3 years ago

"richard epstein" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge

"Welcome to common knowledge. I'm Peter Robinson today. Two of the nation's leading constitutional scholars on the president the wall, the shutdown the Muller investigation the bar nomination. The supreme court to shame to have the two of you here. And so little to talk about Richard Epstein is a professor of law at New York University, professor of law meritous and a senior lecturer at the university of Chicago and fellow here at the Hoover Institution, Richard regularly appears on every list of the most cited and most influential legal scholars of the last half century, John. You is a professor at the university of California at Berkeley school of law. Professor usurped as deputy assistant US attorney general in the office of legal counsel during the administration of President, George W Bush. Professor, you is here to point out that as brilliant as Richard Epstein is he is nevertheless, sometimes sometimes the station, Richard. Correction, Richard John? Thank you. Topic won the wall and the shutdown President Trump wants five point seven billion dollars to build a section of wall or fencing or barrier as he's now calling it on the border five point seven billion dollars is about one eighth of one percent of the federal budget. But the Democrats in the house of representatives under speaker, Nancy Pelosi say, no, hence government shutdown. President Trump keeps saying that. If necessary if the shutdown lasts too long, and as we take this the shutdown has now become the longest in history. He has and I'm quoting him here and undoubted right undoubted right to declare national -mergency and then use Pentagon funds to build the barrier. Without a congressional appropriation. Does such an undoubted right exists which undoubtedly no. Really, oh, he's clearly wrong them, not even close not even close John. I disagree. But that's because the nation. The notion of what's a national emergency has been diluted over the years. We've had national emergencies over the great swine flu epidemic of two thousand nine. Remember that one? But there was at one we the national emergency about the expiration of export control act. We've had national -mergency doesn't mean what we think of hurricane attack from another country. Does mean he's been diluted by the statutes. But these ones he's talked has been statutory. Not just yes. Aaron laws on the song was is that to the extent that you dilute the term so much that it allows the executive to work completely on his own for whatever reason he sees this a serious question of whether or not this is an unconstitutional delagation, excessive thirty to the present. And the definition John talked about of what is an emergency old style. Hurric-? Canes wars invasions and so forth. You can say that about a problem, which is less acute today than it was twenty years ago in terms of people coming in and out of Mexico. So wait a minute. Here's what I wanna make sure ender stand. You are saying that according to statute, the president does have the power, but he shouldn't. No, no, no. It's not good. It's more complicated than that. Because it's sorry about essential to national security. And this is he's going to be ironically bit by the following thing. He appointed to very able men to the supreme court both of whom are against sessions and says Kevin and what he's now doing this claiming that he has complete deference any appointed them to limit the difference of the administrative state. So if they read this tightly essential. Meaning you have to prove that there's some connection to it. They're gonna lose a recent case on the word essential, which went exactly that way. You had to show that there was a real nexus of one kind or another and they kicked back a delegation under the endangered species..

Richard John president President Trump Richard Epstein professor of law professor Peter Robinson Richard Hoover Institution George W Bush university of Chicago New York University Muller hurricane Nancy Pelosi university of California senior lecturer legal counsel Mexico