35 Burst results for "Stanford Law"
Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell
A highlight from News Block: Shocking Lawsuit Against SBF Parents, UAW Strike, Anti-Bitcoin Senator Indicted, Housing Crisis Ahead?
"Welcome to the CoinStories news block. I'm Natalie Brunell, and in the span of just 10 minutes, roughly the same time it takes to mine a new Bitcoin block, I'll provide you with concise, insightful updates on Bitcoin and the global financial landscape so you're well informed on the week's top stories. Everything you need to know, in one place, in one block. Let's go. Let's begin this block with shocking new information coming from the FTX bankruptcy. In a court filing last week, managers of the bankrupt FTX estate sued SPF's parents, Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, who happen to both be renowned legal and ethics scholars and professors at Stanford Law School. The lawsuit alleges that millions of dollars were fraudulently transferred to SPF's parents from FTX Group, and lawyers want to claw those funds back. The filing describes in detail how SPF's parents were more deeply involved with FTX than many people suspected, with SPF's dad routinely calling it a, quote, family business. The filing says Bankman and Fried exploited their access and influence within the FTX enterprise to enrich themselves. It alleges SPF's dad acted as a de facto manager, hand -selecting recipients of charitable contributions, directing hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, hiring and firing employees, and overseeing key investments for FTX. In one exchange, he was upset about his $200 ,000 a year salary and told his son he needed it to be a million a year, even saying, quote, gee, son, I don't know what to say here. This is the first I heard of the 200k a year salary, putting Barbara on this. SPF's father appears to have been richly rewarded for helping to perpetuate the FTX fraud. He flew in private jets, received millions of dollars in cash and real estate, and even appeared in a Super Bowl commercial. He also used his insider status and wealth to influence his circles, including his employer, Stanford University, and various political groups. Stanford has said it will be returning millions of dollars worth of, quote, gifts it received from FTX. Among the most shocking revelations was that it appears Joseph Bankman understood that FTX was nearing insolvency and transferred funds into assets like primary residences so they would be protected in the event of bankruptcy. This included transferring a $16 .4 million luxury property in the Bahamas to himself and his wife. Now, SPF's mother, Barbara Fried, was also deeply intertwined with the FTX scheme. She was the beneficiary of cash and properties and appears to have been the mastermind behind the illegal political donations. Barbara Fried was described as SPF's primary political advisor and allegedly pressured FTX insiders to, quote, unlawfully avoid federal campaign finance law. She pushed FTX employees to use straw donors, which are people who illegally use another person's money to make a political donation in their own name. And lawyers say more than $100 million was stolen from FTX customers to make political donations, making FTX the second largest donor organization behind George Soros Fund management. Although SPF's parents have not been formally charged with anything yet, this lawsuit provides shocking evidence of their involvement in the crypto criminal enterprise. Let's turn now to Robert Menendez, the senior Democratic senator from New Jersey who has been indicted on bribery charges. According to the indictment, Bob and his wife accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bribes in cash, gold bars, mortgage payments and a Mercedes Benz convertible. What makes this particular bribery case notable in the crypto community is that Senator Menendez has been a long time outspoken critic of Bitcoin. Specifically, he has voiced concerns about corruption in Bitcoin and its use in illicit activities. In 2017, the senator wrote a letter stating that the, quote, anonymous nature of Bitcoin transactions makes it an ideal choice for criminals. Menendez was also one of the three co -sponsors of the Accountability for Cryptocurrency in El Salvador Act, which sought to, quote, mitigate risks of El Salvador's adoption of Bitcoin. When it comes to Bitcoin critics in Congress, it's really best to focus on what they do, not what they say. Senator Menendez's charges are just the latest development that supports a 2021 report from former acting director of the CIA, Michael Morrell, who found that criminal activity that takes place using Bitcoin is negligible compared to what transpires within the traditional financial system. This news only further speaks to the corruption present in our political system today and how criminals still prefer good old cash over Bitcoin for illicit activities. Now, speaking of Congress, the clock is ticking to pass yet another new funding bill to prevent a government shutdown. Congress has until October 1st to pass new funding legislation, but Republicans and Democrats are not even close to making a deal. So how could all of this impact the economy? Well, under a government shutdown, hundreds of thousands of federal employees would be sent home without pay. Also, government services like the court system, national parks and economic data reporting institutions would be suspended. According to The Wall Street Journal, government spending makes up about a quarter of U .S. GDP, so a sudden slowdown in spending can impact the economy significantly. But get this, in the event of a government shutdown, those workers won't be paid. But the Pentagon has announced that Ukraine operations would be exempt from any potential shutdown and will go forth fully funded. And that is making a lot of people very upset out there.
Crypto Critics' Corner
A highlight from Were SBF's parents in on it? Follow the Money
"Welcome back, everyone. I am Cass Pianci, and I'm joined as usual by my partner in crime, not of the criminal sort, Bennett Tomlin. How are you today? I'm doing well. How are you, Cass? I'm doing good. It's been busy. It's been a very busy week for both of us. But today's episode is going to be about SPF's parents, the Bankmans and the Freeds, and their what appears to be increasingly important role that they each played in the criminal elements of FTX and Alameda Research. They called it a family business. They accepted incredibly large salaries. His father was getting a million dollars after requesting it because he was only getting 250 ,000 before. Mom pushed and tried to ensure that any money getting sent to the charity arm of the company had two steps of separation, two degrees of separation. And just really shady, weird stuff going on over there with the Bankmans and the Freeds. But those are kind of vague descriptions of what's going on. Bennett, why don't you walk us through some of the seriously criminal elements and what is happening? There is a decent amount of allegations contained in this lawsuit from the FTX debtors in possession against Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried that at a high level alleges that they were involved in specific aspects of the business and were closely connected to various alleged criminal acts and criminal acts people have pled guilty to. Starting with Joseph Bankman, he was involved with Alameda Research as early as 2018, which is when it was founded, and stayed involved throughout the entire time. The first several years, this appears to have been relatively informal. He directed FTX towards their first law firm, suggested their first accounting firm, was involved in consultations for hiring of certain executives and things like that. But none of this was documented in any kind of formal way. Eventually, in January 2021, he decides that there should be some kind of piece of paper that describes his relationship with these entities. And so he creates a document that describes his work for Alameda Research and FTX and FTX US, saying he's doing a variety of pro bono legal work and consulting work for these entities. What's interesting, of course, is that he was the signatory for the FTX entities and for himself on this entity. Really has kind of vibes of that loan agreement between Bitfinex and Tether years ago, where JLVDV and Juan Carlo was signing for both entities. And so that was one moment that really struck me as I was going through that is that he felt the need to, after providing advice for several years, finally in 2021 documents it and says he's providing this pro bono legal advice. This did not stay pro bono for very long. Later in 2021, he would take a leave of absence from Stanford University. And after he took this leave of absence, he allegedly told an FTX US employee, I'm no longer getting paid by Stanford because I'm on leave, so you should have me on salary starting December 1st. In December 2021, this is when he finally entered into a formal employment agreement with FTX US, where his nominal title was Senior Advisor to the FTX Foundation. You said it was $250 ,000. It was actually $200 ,000 a year, plus bonuses he was supposed to be getting paid. And this is where we get to the fun part that you made an allusion to before. He went to FTX's head of administration after signing this employment agreement that clearly said $200 ,000, told this person that he was supposed to be getting $1 million a year starting in December, and then he sends an email over to Sam Bankmanfried, his son, that says, and I quote, Gee, Sam, I don't know what to say here. This is the first I've heard of the $200 ,000 a year salary putting Barbara on this, meaning he cc'd in Sam Bankmanfried's mother and his domestic partner to help him deal with this contract negotiations that happened after he signed that contract. And it worked. It worked. Within two weeks, Bankman and Fried were gifted $10 million in funds originating from Alameda. Within three months, they ended up getting their $16 million mansion in the Bahamas funded entirely by FTX. And over the period after they got that mansion, they were able to expense something like $90 ,000 in various other expenses. And before he signed that contract agreement in December 2021, I do want to make clear he was also provided with an option to purchase shares of FTX US and FTX trading in November 2021. Before he was even employed with FTX, he was getting large options of shares. So yeah, I think that kind of is a good initial overview and we can get into some of the details he was also involved in, but they were receiving a lot of this type of monetary compensation. Yeah, well, I want to specifically bring up here some things that really made a red flag go off for me were, for instance, how they were keen to keep the residencies, the properties that they were acquiring with these gifted funds and all this money that they were essentially taking from customers, to be clear on that, that they wanted to ensure that that money in those properties would be shielded from a bankruptcy. And I'm just wondering, like, why, if they're so confident in this business, if they're so confident in their son, if they're so sure this is the future of finance, and I get it, you want to shield your personal property from a bankruptcy, but you just got gifted $10 million. You have to know this isn't exactly personal property, right? Like, you have to know your son is giving this to you. Your son is making money from the company. How is he making all of this money? You haven't really nailed that down yet. And you still are just letting this all transpire. Nobody was asking any questions is kind of what I'm getting to. But the questions they were asking were about, like, ensuring that they were shielded from any problems in the future. Yeah. And we should clarify the timeline a little bit here. There's a 2021 email exchange where FTX's general counsel wants to set up a meeting with their law firm to discuss how assets, including primary residence, can be structured to be bankruptcy remote. And Bankman quickly kind of responds in this email chain the next day and says it would be great, all else equal, if we could have the founders put money into property in the Bahamas and sent them a link to a description of an offshore trust structure in the Bahamas. He then discusses this with a lawyer in the Bahamas, another Stanford law professor, and his brother -in -law, and then ends up saying something we might use when we buy property in the Bahamas. And the reason I'm belaboring this point is because it happens, I think, about a year before they actually end up getting the house. And then, five months before they get the house, there's another thing that happens, and that's that they apply for residency in the Bahamas, permanent residency in the Bahamas. In order for them to get that, there's a $15 ,000 fee. That's also paid by FTX. And so I think what that kind of shows is this kind of series of planning that went into them eventually getting this mansion. They started discussing how to structure this about a year before, and I don't think they ended up using those trusts, at least not at the time of bankruptcy. They had already gotten their residency months before they got the property, and then they got the property. They wanted to benefit from this. There's no doubt about that. I mean, there is no doubt. I just want to be clear, and we're going to link to the very thorough protest article that goes over all of this, but it is very obvious. I think before we get to the crux of this, I first want to delve into this a little bit more. So Stanford yesterday decided that they were going to return all of the donated funds from this family, which amounted to $5 .5 million, which is a lot. I mean, I know that they get a shit, a metric shit ton of cash every year, but the idea that they're getting $5 .5 million in a single year from one family, one company, you know, essentially one family. That's how you get your name on a building and stuff like that. So they were donating a ton of money to this educational institution. All I want to say is that I think Stanford is disgusting. I think we see this in a bunch of these higher education, these private institutions, probably equally common in great public universities as well, but the ones that we hear about are like MIT or Harvard or Stanford accepting money from Jeffrey Epstein or accepting money from these guys, and then, oh, okay, you're returning it. Great. Well, you know why you're returning it? Because you got caught. That's why you're returning it. You're not returning it because you thought it was the right thing to do. Now that it's all coming out in these court documents, Stanford's giving the money back. They didn't do it one minute before that happened, though. Isn't that interesting? And I, you know, I think you should get into kind of the details of those donations, which there were many over this period, but like, oh, what a nasty, nasty way for a university to operate. I think the elite private colleges are at a special risk for kind of this because so much of their, like, existing structure is based around taking in cash and converting it to some vague elite authority. Speaking specifically about the donations from FTX to Stanford that appear to have been directed by Joseph Bankman, there was one that came from Paperbird directly to Stanford University. And this one was interesting because there was a lot of discussion about which entity to use. And what Bankman ends up saying is that he thought it should come from Paperbird, which was one of the entities that Sam Bankman -Fried owned that held most of the stock for FTX that investors were buying into. The corporate structure of FTX is a mind fuck. But this shows Bankman was aware of parts of the mind fuck. He says Paperbird can use the deduction. And when he discusses alternatives, he says we can have another entity loan Paperbird money, but that requires some paperwork. Eventually they get it all sorted out. FTX transfers money to Paperbird into a newly set up bank account, which immediately sends that money on to Stanford. There was another four million dollar donation to a Stanford fund for pandemic preparedness that he described as pretty much a no brainer. Bitcoin were transferred from Alameda Research's FTX account eventually. There was another series of donations where it was proposed that they give 1 .5 million from the FTX Foundation to Stanford College. However, the initial 500 ,000 for this came from an Alameda Research bank account, and the second 500 ,000 came from an FTX US bank account. There was another donation they did for a Stanford blockchain conference so they could sponsor it. That one was only 10k. But again, it kind of points towards how Bankman saw these entities as interchangeable. He said 10k is so little it doesn't really matter. So if we think that having FTX US is easier or safer for some reason, we should just do that. And what's most interesting is you talked about your name on a building. And there was a Stanford University employee who provided comment as part of this lawsuit. And this Stanford University employee apparently says that internally in Stanford, these donations were categorized as directed by the Bankman -Frieds. And like when they specifically got the big $4 million pandemic preparedness donation from Alameda, this person even reached out, should this one be categorized like the rest as from you all? Or is this one somehow different? And so yeah, I think that those donations kind of point towards how they were specifically using these commingled customer and client funds from across all these different entities in this self -promotional activity of giving these donations. Yep, there's more to where this money went, how much was spent, why they were in control of this. But I think the question that everybody wants to ask and is wondering about is how are they not being criminally charged with anything yet? And will they? I think we should hold off on that question for just a moment, because I want to talk about how Joseph Bankman also made sure other people he was related to and friends with got paid while he was in this position, because I think that's kind of fun. They talk about one example where he got a Stanford law student a free trip to the French Grand Prix tickets to the race so they could go and visit that. But I think the more interesting one was a hackathon that they had planned that was run by his sister. Bankman freed Sam's aunt. They hired her at a rate of $14 ,000 a month to prepare the FTX million -dollar hackathon and crypto summit held at the Miami Heat Arena, which was the one they put their name on briefly. They spent a total of $2 .3 million on this event, which was attended by 1 ,200 people. They were spending crazy amounts. They said she was authorized to spend like without a budget, whatever it was needed to get this event done. There was so much of this kind of like self -enrichment here that we'll get to your question as to how are they not being criminally charged. That's just grift. Yeah, obviously. The other person we need to talk about, of course, is Barbara. Barbara Freed, Sam Bankman Freed's mother. In her specific role, she, as you alluded to at the very beginning of this episode, described herself as her son's partner in crime of the non -criminal sort. And Sam made sure to sing her praises to his team, making known to her that he intended to rely on her direction regarding who to give to, how much to give to, and how it should be disclosed and told them that it would be good for them to follow her advice as well. And what seems really interesting is she seemed to have a great deal of control. The lawsuit even alleges she was able to unilaterally commit funds of Sam Bankman Freed's to her political action committee, Mind the Gap, meaning without Sam's authorization, she was able to take Sam's money donated in Sam's name to her political action committee, which is a great deal of trust. And even inside her own committee, when she had to talk about some of these donations, she would say things like, I don't know exactly what interconnected entity he sent the money from, but the business is real and revenue -generating, which again, I think, points towards kind of the interchangeability of these entities for these folks. What I think really gets interesting is Nishad Singh, who has already pled guilty for conspiracy to defraud the federal election committee, as well as a variety of other conspiracy charges. He was one of the people who appears to have served as effectively a straw -man donor for Sam Bankman Freed, and was advised in this process by Barbara Freed, Sam's mother. At one point when they were discussing donations to her organization Mind the Gap, and she suggested that, now that my connection to Sam is publicly known, because we don't want to create the impression that funding MTG is a family affair, as opposed to a collective effort by many people, including some mystery guy Nishad Singh, which is when she was suggesting that on their end, they would prefer if his name was the one that was donating to Mind the Gap instead of Sam Bankman Freed's. And similarly, she was worried about a lot of their political donations. There's a really telling one, where she's warning him in an email, And again, later, just the last one to really put kind of a cherry on top of her seeming knowledge of some of the criminal acts that Nishad Singh has pled guilty to. She said, And I think this, as well as some of the more specific tax advice that Bankman Freed was giving on FTX their specific finances and stuff like that, point towards potential knowledge of criminal acts. I tweeted out shortly after I read through this lawsuit, or as I was about halfway through reading this lawsuit, if I'm being honest, And as you alluded to previously, that is kind of what this feels like. It feels like these two law professors, who should have known better, had high -level knowledge of things that people have already pled guilty to, and were deeply involved in the business. Bankman specifically was even mentioned on an internal document as a member of the management of FTXUS, along with only a few other names. They had knowledge, they were inside the organization, and they had some amount of presence. One last thing that I think really hammers that home. When we went to consensus, and we talked about this in our episode that we did after that, Anthony Scaramucci was talking about his experiences in the lead -up to and aftermath of the FTX collapse. And one thing he said that seemed to be corroborated in the lawsuit is that Bankman was involved in them attempting to get the emergency funding. And as we said, and we shared the audio clip of Scaramucci saying it, Bankman apparently told Scaramucci, Anthony or intimated to him, that there was an asset liability mismatch at FTX. What happened to me is I was actually speaking in Sarasota, Florida. There was rumblings that day, I think it was November the 6th or something like that, or 7th. The Monday was the 7th. And then I got back to New York and I spoke to Sam's dad about the problem, and it was intimated to me that it was an asset liability mismatch, that they were leading redemptions and there were assets available, but they weren't necessarily liquid, and they needed time to get the liquidity, and they were looking for some rescue plans. And so at that time, I was a good citizen and a partner in the business. In fact, they owned a piece of my business. I was certainly trying to help them on their fundraising round.
The Crypto Overnighter
A highlight from 674:JPEX Meltdown, FTXs Family Feud, and Global Regulatory Squeeze
"Dispatch, this is Mindy at ME Flow. You know, you don't have to put off fixing plumbing problems in your home anymore. I mean, you could just ignore that clogged drain. Or visit MEFlow .com to take care of your plumbing problems. ME Flow, License 271 -001 -2450. Dispatch, this is Mindy at ME Flow. Coming to terms with a dying AC unit is tough. I know, because I've been there. I tried to get my old unit to last just one more summer, and boy did I pay the price. Longest summer of my life. So trust me, if you need to replace your AC, just call ME Flow. My team is on time, total pros, and can take care of any type of AC replacement. Visit MEFlow .com to schedule your free estimate. ME Flow. One call, one company. Well, I gotta get back to it. Dispatch, this is Mindy. Go ahead. Good evening, and welcome to the Crypto Overnighter. I'm Nickademus, and I will be your host as we take a look at the latest cryptocurrency news and analysis. So sit back, relax, and let's get started. And remember, none of this is financial advice. And it's 10pm Pacific on Tuesday, September 19th, 2023. Welcome back to the Crypto Overnighter, where we have no sponsors, no hidden agendas, and no BS. But we do have the news, so let's talk about that. Tonight, we're diving into Hong Kong's JPEG scandal, which has rocked the crypto world and prompted regulatory crackdowns. Across the pond, the UK is sharpening its legal tools to seize crypto assets. But at what cost to financial freedom? In a surprising twist, FTX is suing the parents of its founder, Sam Bankman -Fried, for alleged misappropriation of funds. Meanwhile, the New York Department of Financial Services is tightening its grip on crypto firms with new guidelines. Down in Thailand, a new tax policy could discourage crypto trading by residents, and over in Malta, the blockchain island is aligning itself with new European crypto regulations. Since around the beginning of the year, we started bringing stories about Hong Kong's re -emergence into the world of crypto. We watched China turn a blind eye as Hong Kong politicians and officials appeared to soften their stance against crypto. We've watched as policies have been announced and licenses granted. Sadly, it seems Hong Kong's brand new crypto landscape is in turmoil thanks to the JPEG scandal. The Hong Kong police have arrested eight individuals in connection with the alleged fraud. The police received 1 ,641 complaints involving assets around HK $1 .19 billion. The authorities also seized cash, jewelry, computers, and phones worth about HK $8 million. Additionally, HK $15 million in relevant bank accounts were frozen, along with properties worth about HK $44 million. Hong Kong lawmaker Duncan Chu stated that the city is running its second round of consultation for stablecoin issuance guidelines. He hopes that regulatory guidelines for stablecoin issuers will be released by the middle of next year. This comes as Hong Kong aims to develop itself into a Web3 hub. In June, Hong Kong officially started its crypto licensing regime, allowing licensed exchanges to offer crypto trading services. The JPEG scandal is a glaring example of why regulation is both a necessity and a double -edged sword in the world of crypto. Hong Kong, unlike its hulking big brother China, has been more welcoming to crypto firms. Yet, the JPEG case shows that this openness can be exploited, and the government's response? Tighten the news. Hong Kong's chief executive announced increased efforts to inform investors to only use platforms with Securities and Futures Commission licenses. The JPEG case exposed the vulnerabilities in Hong Kong's crypto market, and it's clear that the government is now in damage control mode. The question is, will this lead to overregulation, thereby stifling innovation, or will it strike a balance, ensuring both growth and security? Either way, it's a critical moment for crypto in Hong Kong, and by extension for the global crypto community. Now before we move on, remember if you find this content valuable, hit that follow button and turn on notifications. Now from Hong Kong's regulatory puzzle, we hop over to the UK. The British are writing new laws that could redefine your notion of financial freedom. Is this an evolution or a step back? Let's find out. The UK is ramping up its efforts to combat crypto -related crimes. A new bill, known as the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, is set to be enacted later this year. This legislation aims to empower local authorities with the ability to freeze and seize crypto assets tied to criminal activities more efficiently. The bill removes the need for an arrest or conviction before assets can be frozen. This is a significant change from the current laws. The bill also introduces new civil forfeiture powers. These allow assets to be seized even if a person is not convicted of a criminal offense. This is particularly useful in cases where the subject of the investigation is unlikely to face justice in the UK. The UK plans to spend $124 million to fight economic crimes, a 50 % increase compared to 2020. The bill has moved to its final stages in parliament and is awaiting final approval. Okay, where do I begin? The UK's new bill is a double -edged sword. On the one hand, it's a powerful tool for law enforcement. It can prevent criminals from moving their assets offshore before they're seized. But on the flip side, this could be a slippery slope towards more centralized control over crypto assets. The bill's broad powers could potentially be misused, leading to unjust seizures. Moreover, the UK's aggressive stance might push crypto activities to jurisdictions with lax regulations. This could make it even more challenging for global authorities to track illicit activities. The bill also raises questions about financial privacy. How much power should a government have to freeze and seize assets without a conviction? The UK's move is a clear signal that governments are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies. While the bill aims to fight economic crimes, it also sets a precedent that could be followed by other countries. This could lead to a global tightening of regulations around cryptocurrencies, which are something we should all be wary of. How you think seizing crypto assets without a conviction is shocking? Hold your horses. FTX is suing the parents of its founder. You heard that right. It's a family feud worth millions, and it raises some dark questions about ethics in the crypto world. Don't go anywhere. So that's gotta be a rough day. The day the company you founded sues the very people who gave you life. But that's what's happening as FTX is suing the parents of its founder, Sam Bankman Fried. The lawsuit aims to recover millions in quote, fraudulently transferred and misappropriated funds. Both parents, Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, are accused of exploiting their influence within FTX to enrich themselves. The lawsuit alleges that the parents received millions from FTX for personal benefit and their chosen causes. For instance, they received over $18 .9 million for a property in the Bahamas known as Blue Water. The parents are also accused of siphoning off money for lavish expenses like $1200 per night hotel stays. The filing further claims that Joseph Bankman had a unique understanding of FTX's complex corporate structure, which he used to facilitate a $10 million cash gift to himself and Fried. Barbara Fried was the point person for SPF's political contribution strategy and co -founded a political action committee that received tens of millions of dollars from FTX. The lawsuit also says that the parents were involved in FTX's business cradle to grave. Joseph Bankman is described as a de facto officer of FTX group with broad authority to make decisions. Barbara Fried was actively involved in FTX's political donations. The lawsuit against SPF's parents shines a glaring spotlight on the darker aspects of the crypto world. The case raises questions about the ethical boundaries within businesses in the crypto space. The parents, both law professors, should have known better. Their academic credentials add a veneer of legitimacy, making the allegations even more shocking. The involvement of Stanford law professors in such a scandal reminds us that even those in towers can be lured by the siren call of easy crypto riches. The lawsuit paints the picture of a family that used their intellectual prowess, not for the betterment of society, but for personal gain. It's easy to get caught up in the promise of decentralization and financial freedom, but this lawsuit shows that the same old vices, greed, corruption, and exploitation, can infiltrate even the most modern of financial systems. It's as I said at the time, the crime had nothing to do with crypto and everything to do with greed. Intrigued by the drama at FTX? Make sure to like this episode and share it. But now, let's switch gears. If you thought family drama was complex, try navigating New York's new crypto guidelines. The NYDFS is tightening the leash on crypto firms. Is it protection or overreach? We're diving in.
Crypto News Alerts | Daily Bitcoin (BTC) & Cryptocurrency News
A highlight from 1406: Bitcoin Will Hit $4 Million, Rising 100x - Peter Thiel
"In today's show, we'll be discussing Bitcoin Bollinger Bands hitting a key zone as Bitcoin price fights for $27 ,000. In breaking news just in, Bitcoin hash rate hits a new all -time high. Let's go. And quoting Stacey Herbert, Bitcoin is pumping on the news of President Bukele's speech to the UN tonight. Can't wait. We'll also be discussing Bitcoin Adoption Fund launched by Japan's $500 billion Nomura Bank. That's right. The Bitcoin Adoption Fund will have long -only exposure to Bitcoin and be available to institutional investors. We'll also be sharing Sam Bankman, Fried's father, dragged his mother into an FTX US salary dispute. You can't make this stuff up, folks. Also in today's show, Bitcoin gearing up for a post -having parabola, according to crypto analysts. I'll be sharing his very bullish all -time high target. We'll also be discussing crypto asset market cap should explode 5 to 10x during the next bull cycle, according to investor Raoul Pal. I'll also be sharing Peter Thiel's $4 million Bitcoin price prediction, and we'll also be taking a look at the overall crypto market. All this plus so much more in today's show. Yo, what's good crypto fam? This is first and foremost, a video show. So if you want the full premium experience with video, visit my YouTube channel at cryptonewsalerts .net. Again, that's cryptonewsalerts .net. Welcome everyone just joining us. This is pod episode number 1406. I'm your host JV. And today is September 19th, 2023. We have lots to cover as usual. Massive shout out to everyone today in the live chat. Please let me know where you're tuning in from. And at the end of the show, I'm going to be reading everyone's comments out loud. Let's kick off today's show with our market watch as we do each and every day, the entire crypto market back in the green with Bitcoin back above $27 ,100 and checking out coinmarketcap .com, the current crypto market cap on the climb at $1 .08 trillion with roughly $27 billion in volume for the past 24 hours, Bitcoin dominance at 49 .2 % and the Ether dominance at 18 .4%. And checking out the top 100 crypto gainers of the past 24 hours, we have TonCoin leading the pack up 5%, trading at $2 .57, followed by GMX up about 5%, trading just under 36 bucks, followed by Conflux up 4%, trading at $0 .12. And checking out the top 100 crypto gainers of the past week, virtually 95 out of the top 100 cryptos are in the green. Some of the top gainers include GMX, GRT, as well as CRV and NEO. And checking out the crypto greed and fear index, we're currently rated at 46 in fear, same as 37 in fear. So there you have it. How many of you are pretty stoked for this most recent pump? And how many of you agree with Stacey Herbert that this pump is due to Bukele's speech scheduled for this evening? Let me know, fam. And now let's dive into today's Bitcoin technical analysis. Check out the charts and what's popping with the king crypto. Bitcoin could see fresh upside volatility as the price action and the strength revisits a key level according to a classic metric. In a new post, John Bollinger, creator of the Bollinger Bands volatility indicator, says Bitcoin was positioned for a breakout decision. That's right. After hitting new September highs the day prior, Bitcoin has been challenging resistance levels out of reach since mid -August, according to data from Cointelegraph and TradingView. Now for Bollinger, the signs for Bitcoin are encouraging. Bollinger Bands use a standard deviation around the simple moving average to determine both the likely price ranges and volatility. And as Michael Saylor once said, volatility equals life force. Now, currently Bitcoin is putting in daily candles that touch the upper band. And when this happens, it can signal an imminent reversal back to the center band, or conversely, an inbound fit of upside volatility. Now narrow Bollinger Bands seen on Bitcoin recently lend weight to hopes that the latter scenario will now play out, quitting him here. And then there is the first tag of the upper Bollinger Band. After the new set of controlling bars were established at the lower band, he commented alongside this chart, the question is now, can we walk up to the upper band or is it too early to answer? What are your thoughts, chat? Let me know in the comments below. Now Bollinger characterizes the current mood among seasoned Bitcoin traders and analysts on the short -term timeframes. Despite the strength seen this week, caution abounds as various trend lines previously acting as support remain above the spot price. Now discussing the situation, we had on -chain monitoring resource, material indicators share the following. We have heavy technical resistance overhead at the key moving averages and support at the lower low. It is quite possible that we round trip the range. And with any luck, we'll see a legit test of the RS levels that will give us some clarity on where Bitcoin goes from here before the end of the week. And they also shared here in update number two, as noted earlier, it appears the Bitcoin bulls are gaining some momentum, but things are not always as they seem and goes on to share that sometime after last night's candle and close open, we've seen a new trend precognition signal develop on the daily chart and it seems to be bullish. I mean, we are breaking out. We are above 27 ,000. So let's freaking go. And also more strong foundation on the technicals. You can see Bitcoin hits yet another all -time high, which virtually means the network has never been this strong and this secure. Now I'm pretty stoked to tune into President Bukele's speech to the UN this evening. What do you think he has to share besides? I told you so. Let me know, fam. And again, welcome to everyone just joining us for the live show. Lots to continue to cover. So let's continue breaking it down. Next, let's discuss this adoption fund, which is a pretty big deal coming out of Japan. Let's go check this out. Japan's largest investment bank, Numura's digital asset subsidiary, Laser Digital Asset Management, launched the Bitcoin adoption fund specifically for the institutional investors. Bring it. The official announcement noted the Bitcoin -based fund will be the first in a range of digital adoption investment solutions that the firm plans to introduce. Now Numura is a Japanese financial giant with over $500 billion worth of assets, which basically that's half a trillion, baby, offers brokerage services to leading institutional investors. The Bitcoin fund launched by its digital asset arm will now offer investors direct exposure to BTC. The Laser Digital Bitcoin Adoption Fund offers long key exposure to Bitcoin. The financial giant has chosen Kamanu as its regulated custody partner. The Bitcoin fund is a portion of Laser Digital Fund's segregated portfolio company that has been registered as a mutual fund in accordance with the Cayman Islands regulatory authority. Now, Laser Digital Asset Management head Sebastian said the Bitcoin is one of the enablers of this long -lasting transformational change and long -term exposure to Bitcoin offers a solution for the investors to capture this macro trend. Now, the Bitcoin adoption fund might be the first of its kind launched by Numura and the digital asset arm, but the Japanese investment banking giant has been investing in the digital asset ecosystem for quite some time already. In fact, September of last year, the firm launched its digital asset venture capital arm to stay at the forefront of digital innovation. And also won Dubai's virtual asset regulatory authority license to operate in the country. The long -only Bitcoin adoption fund for investors in Japan comes amid a growing discussion around Bitcoin -based investment products from regulated and mainstream financial giants. The United States SEC approved two Bitcoin ETFs, even though there is a delayed decision specifically on the spot. Bitcoin ETFs. What's up with that, Mr. Gensler? Just saying. And apart from the US, Canada and focused investment products over the past couple of years. So there you have it, mass adoption, let's freaking go, especially on the institutional level. How many of you are in Japan? I know we have some in our audience out there. Let me know. And have you ever heard of this company before? Any plans in investing through them? Let me know how you guys feel. And now let's break down the latest. It gets more surprising and shocking every day with what all is going on with Bankman -Fried and FTX. Now his parents are involved. His parents are being sued by FTX. And it's just a nightmare of a mess, to say the least. So let's break down this latest story regarding SBF. Now, Joseph Bankman, the father of the former FTX CEO, Sam Bankman -Fried, complained to his son about the salary he was receiving during his employment at FTX US, turning the issue into a family matter. In a September 18 filing with the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, FTX debtors filed a complaint against Bankman and Barbara Fried, alleging that SBF's parents misappropriated millions of dollars through their involvement in the exchange's business. And according to the court documents, Bankman's contract with FTX US should have provided a $200 ,000 annual salary following a leave of absence from the Stanford Law School in December 2021. However, Bankman seemed to express ignorance about the terms of the contract, claiming to both FTX US and his son that he was expecting a $1 million annual salary. What about all that property in the Bahamas, fam? What about all that? Hundreds of millions worth of properties? Just wanted to throw that out there. The complaint states that Bankman was putting Barbara on this, suggesting that SBF's mother may have been able to persuade her son to follow through with the salary change. Things get even more interesting. So according to the complaint, Bankman's influence paid off, with SBF later providing his parents $10 million from Alameda Research. Can you talk about commingling? A 16 .4 million property in the Bahamas, funded by FTX Trading, the ability to expense roughly $90 ,000 to FTX Trading on the island nation in the Bahamas, and options to purchase company stock. Now, when reached out to the legal team representing Bankman and Fried, but did not receive a response at the time, unfortunately, the legal action brought by the debtors was the latest in the bankruptcy case involving FTX and many of its subsidiaries filed in November of last year. Bankman Fried also faces 12 criminal charges to be spread across two trials, starting in October of 2023, which is right around the corner, fam, and March of 2024, right before the halving, scheduled for April of next year. And since the federal judge revoked his bail in August, Bankman Fried has been largely confined to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. Where's Brooklyn at? Before the start of his October trial, then on September 19th, a three -judge panel heard an appeal from SPF's legal team requesting the former FTX CEO to be released from jail in order to prepare for the trial, citing the lack of internet access and first amendment issues. All I got to say is this, I mean, how many people realistically have access to the internet in jail? Why should he? Million dollar question right there. But what are your thoughts, fam? How do you think this is likely to play out? And do you think that Bankman Fried's parents are just as guilty as SPF himself with the commingling and the fraud of going up north of $30 billion, making it the biggest scam in history that we're aware of? Hence why we call him Mini Madoff, because he made off with billions of dollars worth of investors' money, and Gary Gensler and the SEC was protecting him behind closed doors. So it's going to be very interesting to see how all this is likely to play out. Now let's discuss post halving. We all know there is a halving scheduled roughly six months out. We all know post halving, the price action is most likely going to reach a new all -time high and enter price discovery mode. Well, this analyst shares a very intriguing target. So let's break this down, shall we? And welcome to y 'all just joining us. Say hello in that live chat. Let me know where you're tuning in from. I stream live here seven days a week from Puerto Rico. Synonymous analyst Rhett Capital tells his followers on X that Bitcoin can rally above $80 per ,000 coin in the months following next month's event. For the halving, send it. Let's go. The Bitcoin halving cuts the Bitcoin miners' rewards in half, as we all know, expected to take place in April of next year. And while Rhett Capital is a long -term bull on Bitcoin, he notes that it is possible for Bitcoin to continue its downtrend before the halving, putting him here. Hang in there and make the most of any deeper downside in this pre halving period. You won't see the post halving parabola in the outlines here in this chart. It shows you in the yellow, the pre halving period, then in the pink, the post halving resistance, and then in the green, you can see the post halving parabola when we hit those new all -time highs. Now, Rhett notes that Bitcoin may repeat its 2019 bear market cycle when it traded within a triangle pattern before breaking out and starting off the bull market, as he shares here, if Bitcoin continues to form lower highs, could Bitcoin fill the CME, which is the Chicago Mercantile Exchange gap, at $20 ,000 later this year or in early 2024? So it makes a good point. There is currently a gap sitting at that $20 ,000 psychological level. And he continues, if so, the possible path could be consolidation to the apex of the black triangle before finally breaking out to close the halving. And you can see that triangle right here in this chart. Now, looking at the chart, he seemed to suggest that Bitcoin will confirm the triangle breakout in April of 2024, followed by a rally towards his long -term target. Now, let me know your thoughts, chat. How many of you agree that Bitcoin is likely to break out to a new all -time high, entering price discovery mode in 2024, the year of the halving? Let me know. And what are some of your targets? I'd also like to point out that the Stock the Flow model and Plan B, creator of that model, he suggests a $100 to $1 million range price for the King Crypto post halving. We also have some very other bullish predictions, which I cover on a daily basis here on the channel. But I'd love to know your personal prediction. I think we reached the cycle peak personally sometime in 2025, but I think 2024, we enter that price discovery mode. But I'd love to know your thoughts and your opinions in the comments right down below. And now let's break down our next story of the day and discuss the latest from the macro guru, Raoul Pal, who is suggesting that the Bitcoin market cap and crypto market cap as a whole does something between 5 and 10x for this upcoming bull cycle. Now, you do the math. We have a crypto market cap right now. I'm going to ballpark it at a trillion. We have a Bitcoin market cap. I'm going to ballpark it at a half a trillion, which is 500 billion. So hypothetically, if we were to 10x Bitcoin in and of itself, we're talking about a 5 trillion dollar Bitcoin market cap, which would be half the current market cap of gold. Now, with the entire crypto market cap, we can potentially hit 10 trillion. Now, also note, back in November of 2021, when we hit that all time high of 69 ,000 in November of last year, the total crypto market cap was just north of that 3 trillion dollar market cap. So he's so let's break this down and shout out to Raoul Pal. Here we go. Former Goldman Sachs executive Raoul Pal says the next bull cycle can bring an explosion in the market cap of all of the digital assets. That's right. In a new interview with Altcoin Daily, the macro expert says he expects a huge increase in the adoption of digital assets, and that can cause the total market cap of crypto to skyrocket as much as 900 % from its current value during the next bull market. Quoting the analysts here, obviously, I think we'll go well through new all time highs. I think the whole ecosystem of crypto will go from 425 million users where we're at today. And I think at the end of this cycle, there'll be a billion users by that kind of use cases in which we have talked about. And let's not forget, we have got central bank digital currencies that are known as CBDCs and stable coins. There is a lot going on still. So if this entire space is going to grow 2 .5 X in the number of users, well, the market cap of the entire space is five or 10 X. Send it. Let's go. Pal also says he is closely watching development of layer two Altcoin projects for new use cases, which could boost the value of their individual market cap, quitting him again. And then let's see how people value layer twos in this. We don't really know how layer twos accrue much value. Do we have to have a massive amount of transactions in which case then you need stuff like Ticketmaster with millions and millions and millions of transactions to drive value to those chains because they batched them and batched them down to Ethereum. So there you have it. And to watch this interview, he did Raul Pal, the macro guru with Altcoin Daily entitled best cryptocurrency investing strategy into 2024. Check the show notes, blow the video in the description and let me know your thoughts on his personal prediction. Do you feel post having that the market cap for the entire crypto market can likely 10 X from the current valuation along with Bitcoin surging 10 X to roughly a five trillion market cap? And hypothetically, if the macro guru is correct, where do you think that would likely take the Bitcoin price? Well, let's run some hypothetical math. Bitcoin was the 10 X from the current price action of 27 ,000. Well, that's $270 ,000 per coin. Take that. And as we all know, Bitcoin rises like that, the entire crypto market cap would go along for the ride, including the altcoin. So please let me know in the chat, fam, which altcoins, if any, are you most bullish on in the crypto market? And what are your thoughts surrounding Raul Pal being so bullish on Solana? A few months back, I read in an interview he shared that 80 % or more of his portfolio was specifically in an altcoin called Solana. So I'd love to know your thoughts. Obviously, he has a high risk tolerance as I look at that particular cryptocurrency to be very risky, especially with all that went in with the venture capitalists and SPF and FTX exchange pumping that particular all. So I'd love to know how you feel regarding all of that. And with that being shared, fam, now let's discuss Peter Thiel and his $4 million price prediction, as well as rumor has it, and I'll be covering this as well, that he dumps most of his Bitcoin position at the top of the market practically 30 days before the crash. So let's break this down because Peter Thiel was actually one of the keynote speakers at the Miami Conference for Bitcoin. And here's what he had to share as I transcribed his speech, and then we'll discuss him reportedly making $1 .8 billion cashing out on his eight -year bet around the time he was touting these all -time high predictions. So here we go. He says, the enemy's list is a list of people who I think are stopping Bitcoin. He says there is a lot of them. They tend to have nameless, faceless bureaucratic perspectives, which of course is one of the ways they hide. He goes on to share, we are going to try to expose them and realize that this is sort of what we have to fight for Bitcoin to go up, 10x or 100x from here. Now, just FYI, to give you some perspective, at the time he made this prediction on stage at the Bitcoin Miami Conference, Bitcoin was trading at roughly $43 ,000 per coin. So you run the math. 43 ,000 times 100x is over $4 million per Bitcoin. So you know that? Let's continue with what he had to share. The central banks are going bankrupt. We are at the end of the fiat money regime. How many of you agree with that statement? I agree there 100%. The first person on the list is Berkshire Hathaway CEO, Warren Buffett. Thiel put up a picture of Buffett with two of his most famous quotes about Bitcoin. One was rat poison and the other, I don't own any and I never will. I also like to point out now since then, Warren Buffett has much indirect exposure to Bitcoin through Bitcoin mining stock companies and etc. So go figure. If you can't beat them, join them, right? And he goes on. He opined, I think the direct in it. Yeah, and I say also Charlie Munger goes along with him. Now, feel further noted that Buffett has a bias and makes him long on fiat money system and money managers who follow the Berkshire Hathaway executives advice will pretend it's complicated to invest into Bitcoin. I think we call that FUD. Fear, uncertainty and doubt. Now expect nothing less from one of the wealthiest people in the fiat money matrix Ponzi scheme. You know what I mean? So just saying. The next person on the list of Bitcoin's enemies is the one and only JP Morgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon, or as Max Kaiser calls him, Jamie the tapeworm. They'll put diamonds picture up with the following quote. I don't call them crypto currencies. I call them crypto tokens because currencies have rules of law behind them, central banks and tax with authorities. Now you guys already know how I feel personally about JP Morgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon. So I won't go any deeper there. But anyways, we know he's an enemy of Bitcoin and always has been. The next picture he put up was of the BlackRock CEO, Larry Fink, with the following quote. I see huge opportunities in a digitized crypto blockchain related currency, and that's where I think it is going to go. Now just FYI, Larry Fink is the CEO of the largest asset management firm in the entire world, which owns a large share in virtually all the companies in the S &P 500, and that is BlackRock. They currently have over $10 trillion in assets under management. And for a long time, he was spreading FUD regarding Bitcoin. But guess what? Like I mentioned earlier, if you can't beat them, join them because they just most recently, a few months ago, they submitted their application for a spot Bitcoin ETF, which ultimately means they're going to be introducing this to the institutions which have trillions upon trillions of dollars as there's currently north of $700 trillion in total addressable market, and they want their piece of the Bitcoin pie. So he goes on to share, the PayPal co -founder added that Fink's quote is somewhat representative of the whole genre of Bitcoin attacks that need further context, stating that pro -blockchain is an anti -Bitcoin term, very typically. Feel then brought up the environmental, social, and governance, ESG standards, elaborating the following, the label they have come up with, and perhaps the real enemy is ESG. I think that ESG is just a hate factory. Also like to throw out there, Elon Musk, he stopped taking Bitcoin payments for Tesla, and he says it's because of the FUD regarding this ESG, and we all know it's not more than FUD, and it's already been proven that Bitcoin is more than 50 % clean energy. So the million dollar question, when will the world's supposedly wealthiest man, Elon Musk, when will he start accepting Bitcoin payments again for Tesla? Isn't that a great question, and wouldn't you love to know the answer to that? Maybe you should ask Elon and tag him on X and see what he says. Anyways, feel stressed. You can always ask the question, what's the difference between ESG and the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party? Well, when you think ESG, you should be thinking of CCP per H. Now, he also goes on to share, it is the finance gentocracy that runs the country through whatever silly virtue signaling or hate factory to them, just like ESG, the billionaire concluded. This is what I would call and what you have to think of as a revolutionary youth movement, and we have to just go out from this conference and take over the world. So there you have it, fam. What are your thoughts surrounding Peter Thiel's prediction that we are likely to 100X, and along with his enemies list, as it seems, a lot of the enemies have come around and now have direct exposure to BTC, but it doesn't stop there because around that time he was making this $4 million Bitcoin price prediction. He allegedly dumped most of his position cashing out and with over a billion dollars in profits for his fund. So let's also break this down as this is also very relevant. How many of you were able to watch the speech he gave at that Bitcoin conference? It was epic, to say the least. I recall it now. So here we go. Check it out. Peter Thiel's venture capital firm reportedly made $1 .8 billion closing out its crypto positions around the time when he was an early Bitcoin bull, still predicting the token's price to surge by 100X. And again, from 43 ,000 price action, 100X means over 4 million. Founders Fund had cashed out almost all of its bets on digital assets by March of 2022, according to the Financial Times report that cited people familiar with the matter. But Thiel was still backing Bitcoin, obviously, when he spoke at the crypto conference in Miami the following month. He went on to share where at the end of the fiat money regime, he said, adding that the token's price could increase 100 fold from its level at the time, which was reported at $44 ,000 per coin. That prediction was proven false and as rising interest rates and failures, the high profile firms like Celsius Network, Three Arrows Capital, FTX, Terra Luna dragged the crypto sector into the prolonged bearish winter. Now Bitcoin plummeted by over 60 % in 2022 and was trading at under 17 ,000 by the end of the year. And I believe the bottom currently for the cycle is 15 ,700. How many of you feel that that bottom is in? Let me know, chat. Founders Fund first started pouring money into crypto all the way back in 2014, when Bitcoin was only trading at roughly $750 per coin. So by the time Bitcoin reached its all time high in November of 2021, it had surged 8 ,500 % from that particular level. Not too shabby for a seven year run, wouldn't you say? Now Thiel has a long track record as one of Silicon Valley's most prominent tech investors. He took early stakes in startups, which include Facebook, Elon Musk's SpaceX, and ride hailing app Lyft, and even co -founded PayPal back in 1998. Thiel is also a high profile supporter of the Republican Party and continued to voice his support for Donald Trump since the former president left office in January of 2021. The fund held around two thirds of his portfolio in Bitcoin at one time, but now not has significant exposure to crypto according to FT's sources. So there you have it. Fam, what are your thoughts surrounding his prediction and him cashing out at around that time he was making those all time high predictions of 100X? Let me know, fam. And don't forget to check out cryptonewsalerts .net for the full premium experience with video and to participate in the live Q &A. And I look forward to seeing you on tomorrow's episode. HODL.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Conservative Judges Extend Clerk Boycott to Stanford
"I am continuing my discussion of the controversy at Stanford involving free speech. You remember that this controversy was kindled by a judge, a district judge who came judge Duncan, Kyle Duncan, who came to speak at Stanford and was completely shut down by howling and screaming activists. And administrator was called and who sided with the activists happily that administrator is now placed on leave. The Stanford dean has affirmed Stanford's commitment to free speech, but in a very big but no disciplinary action at all taken against any of the protesters, which gives them the sense of immunity of entitlement of obviously feeling that they can and will do it again. In fact, they sort of did do it again when the dean journey Martinez stopped into her constitutional law class. It was basically a protest in her class horror blackboard was completely covered with activist slogans and paraphernalia. And the students basically said that they were complaining that she was siding with free speech over the over the protesters. Now, in the most recent escalation, a very good escalation, U.S. circuit court judge James hull, Asian American guys, taken the lead. He's followed by another judge, another circuit court judge Elizabeth branch, and he goes, guess what? I'm not going to be hiring any clerks from Stanford law school. Don't even bother to apply. And then judge branch has said, I'm not going to do the same. And there's a whole bunch of other judges who are in sympathy with these guys who haven't made any public announcements, but guess what? They might have decided, I won't say anything, but I'm not going to do that either.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
Judges Fight Back: Stanford Law Review Discriminates Against Conservative Judges
"I also want to point out they're attacking the federal society and Leonard Leo on a consistent extensive continuing basis and the Stanford meltdown was over a Trump judge conservative judge on a prestigious law school campus and I didn't think it was particularly fair for the judges who said no Stanford law review students need apply to us because it's a wide net, right? It gets federal society members who are themselves the victim. But it is, it is an indication that the judges are aware and they're going to fight back, Molly, and I applaud that, do you? I love that they're fighting back. And I do want to defend judge Ho and the other federal judge who said this, I do think you need to do something intense and that impact more judges should sound the alarm. And that people should know that there are consequences to getting an education from a school that will not teach you some of the foundational principles of being a judge of being a good attorney and that if you don't push back hard, they just won't feel the pressure of the heat to do to do what they need to do.
The Eric Metaxas Show
John Zmirak: What Can We Learn From the Stamford Pro-Pedo Riot?
"Back talking to John Zack, not to be confused with Alan Dershowitz. John S mirak, you wrote an article or have you yet written the article about the Stanford riots? It's called, what can we learn from the Stanford pro pedophile riot? And it is linked to this transgenderism. They had stream dot org. Right. About a week and a half ago, a middle of the road judge. She was appointed by George W. Bush. Went to give a talk at Stanford law school sponsored by the federalist society. He was greeted by a full on riot by enraged Stanford law students, led by one of the deans, the dean of diversity, equity, and inclusion at Stanford, encouraging them to shout down this judge and not allow him to speak. On his way in, some of these Stanford law students were chanting, we hope your daughter is raped. These are Stanford law, remember, is a feeder school to the U.S. Supreme Court. Look, we need to be clear. These elite law schools, people in elite law firms are now realizing that to hire someone from Stanford law school, Yale law school, most of those places have gone so crazy. You're begging for lawsuits and a nightmare if you hire graduates of what were the elite institutions and Stanford law school has just shown us the latest example of this. So this judge came and he was not allowed to speak he was shouted down by enraged students who said his daughter should be raped. What did this guy do? What had he done that was sought rages? Had he ruled in favor of racial segregation? Had he ruled in favor of, I don't know, killing newborn children who survived abortion attempts, even if he'd done one of those things. It would not be right to shout down a judge.
WLS-AM 890
"stanford law" Discussed on WLS-AM 890
"You hear what happened in Stanford Stanford University a federal judge Kyle Duncan probably heard about the story was invited by the federalist society to speak at Stanford University school of law A law school Now Jim what is stupid idea right Why would you want a lawyer of federal judge to go and speak at a law school Jim shaken his head Mike too Mike's like I don't know can't figure it out They're having liberal amnesia today Like I don't know Dan what a dumb idea Get a lawyer You know come on that's stupid Jim Stop saying dumb stuff Come on I used to respect you brother Jim said he might have something to say no No Be an idiot But he have to add Does he know Has a federal judge But the law So they invite this guy to speak A great honor I have a federal judge show up By the way let me just say and it's not in kind of full virtue signal either I'm at a law school I'd like to see a liberal appointed judge maybe someone by Obama I like to hear what they got to say how they justify their view of legal theory Why Because I agree with it The hell but because if I'm a lawyer I want to know how to argue against it in court right Not liberal idiots Liberal idiots don't see it that way Liberal morons are like shout them down Exterminate them Immediately get the flame throwers Is there a firing squad closed So they screamed and shouted Until the judge can no longer speak So then the judge Kyle Duncan said is there an administrator here to get control of these raving band of childlike lunatics So an administrator shows up Her name is Tyrion steinbeck she shows up and she decides she's going to give this guy a now two three minute lecture about how his words have caused pain and this is a safe space whenever I'll play
The Dan Bongino Show
Stanford Law Students Riot Against Judge Kyle Duncan's Visit to Campus
"You hear what happened in Stanford Stanford University a federal judge Kyle Duncan probably heard about the story was invited by the federalist society to speak at Stanford University school of law A law school Now Jim what is stupid idea right Why would you want a lawyer of federal judge to go and speak at a law school Jim shaken his head Mike too Mike's like I don't know can't figure it out They're having liberal amnesia today Like I don't know Dan what a dumb idea Get a lawyer You know come on that's stupid Jim Stop saying dumb stuff Come on I used to respect you brother Jim said he might have something to say no No Be an idiot But he have to add Does he know Has a federal judge But the law So they invite this guy to speak A great honor I have a federal judge show up By the way let me just say and it's not in kind of full virtue signal either I'm at a law school I'd like to see a liberal appointed judge maybe someone by Obama I like to hear what they got to say how they justify their view of legal theory Why Because I agree with it The hell but because if I'm a lawyer I want to know how to argue against it in court right Not liberal idiots Liberal idiots don't see it that way Liberal morons are like shout them down Exterminate them Immediately get the flame throwers Is there a firing squad closed So they screamed and shouted Until the judge can no longer speak So then the judge Kyle Duncan said is there an administrator here to get control of these raving band of childlike lunatics So an administrator shows up Her name is Tyrion steinbeck she shows up and she decides she's going to give this guy a now two three minute lecture about how his words have caused pain and this is a safe space whenever I'll play
ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes
Find Your Spine, Conservatives!
"Am so sick and tired of conservatives, and I get these emails all the time. They'll say Todd, you're not going to believe what happened to my child. You're not going to be you're not going to believe what happened to me. On the job. And then when I say come on the program, let's talk about it. Let's expose the evil. What do they do? They back away. Oh no, I can't do that. No, I'm afraid I might lose my job or my neighbors might say something or somebody might write something mean about me on Twitter. You know what? Forget that. Find your spine conservatives. We've got to start taking a stand. Did Charlie Kirk and his team go out there and riot at UC Davis? No. They embraced their rights under the U.S. Constitution. And they won the day. Look at what's happening right over at Stanford University. We talked about this a few days ago. Where a federal court judge was heckled and shouted down what he called for help the administrator came, the dean of the diversity equity and inclusion division showed up and began lecturing the judge. After the university apologized, the students rose up and now they're protesting the dean of the law school. And here's what needs to happen there. Every single student protesting, they're all law students. So these are individuals who have graduate degrees already. They've already got their bachelors. They're getting their law degree. Every single one of them should be expelled from Stanford law school, because we don't need ilk like that in our courtrooms.
The Dan Bongino Show
Amber Athey: A Preview of Upcoming Book 'The Snowflakes' Revolt'
"So this is how sick it is on the left taking the side of accused child rapists now But amber these were lost students Can you imagine you or I I mean everybody knows on social media you and I are conservatives This is not hard to find Can you imagine you and I in a civil dispute in front of one of these Stanford law students who God forbid winds up as a state or federal judge You have zero chance of winning I'm so glad you brought this up Dan because this is entirely the premise of my upcoming book the snowflakes are available for pre order now And wait what's the title The snowflakes revolt The snowflakes revolt folks pick it up pre order today the snowflakes revolt amber ati Want to make sure we got that out Okay go ahead sorry Thank you Well the whole premise of the book is that conservatives got it completely wrong when we said that the snowflake campus cry boys were going to get to the real world and they were going to have to adapt or die They were going to not have all of their ridiculous toxic political ideologies catered to The opposite happened they went into society and they actually have infiltrated and seized power at major American institutions And the fact that this is happening at one of the most prestigious law schools is a perfect demonstration of the point because these people are going to get prestigious clerkship They're going to become judges themselves They are going to have massive influence on our criminal justice system And yet Stanford is putting up with the idea that they are allowed to shut down speakers that they're allowed to reject freedom of speech freedom of association they are creating a class of individuals who are going to go out into the world and treat people unfairly because of their political affiliation And that is completely opposite of what any good lawyer or judge should be doing
77WABC Radio
"stanford law" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"And it impacts directly their people humans, their families, and their communities. And I'm uncomfortable. And it's uncomfortable to say this to you as a person. It's uncomfortable to say that for many people here, your work has caused harm, has caused harm. And I know that must be uncomfortable to hear. I'm very uncomfortable very to hear this. Then she sound like a left wing kook hippie mister producer. is, so this is what's happening. The gun around the country looking for these no, I don't know if tiring Steinbach. Meets this requirement. But they're looking for the sort of drug addled people are people who had their brains fried at a young age. You know the type. Would you like to be the dean adversity equity and inclusion? Excluding tiring Steinbach, of course. Well, you get free healthcare, pension, court of a million a year, the work two hours a day, you can spew stupidity in a three hour lunch break. All right, I'm happy to do that. Yes, I am. Is the juice worth the squeeze? I'd never heard that phrase before. Have you rich? The juice from, you know, like squeezing an orange. So worth the squeeze. I set profundity at Stanford law school. Did you hear them screaming at the top of their lungs? This is what we're raising. These are the lawyers of the future. They slip and fall ambulance traces. The judges with the black robes they'll be working with the new medical students. Oh, yes. They're learning DEI two. Did you know this? Yes, yes. Now you would think merit in medical school if anywhere we need merit, right? Because the doctor makes a mistake. Look at it this way if you're transitioning in a doctor makes a mistake if he adds something rather than subtracting something. That would be upsetting, don't you think mister producer? I think it'd be very offensive. Yes. And isn't it amazing? You have a train that goes off the tracks, right? Because a ball bearing overheated. And that's Trump's fault, by the way. But when we have accidents, when people get hurt, when people get killed, they're to be held to account, right? But if they come out of the diversity equity and inclusion group, hardcore leftists, are we going to hold them to account for their failures too? Because they're obviously not the best of the best. And so I've been saying, ladies and gentlemen, if we want to join with a slip and fall crap, if you ever Sue a young doctor, make sure you sue the medical school they went to also. If they're in on this diversity equity and inclusion stuff. That's how you hold them to account. If you're going to do it, do it. That include them. If you have a lawyer who sucks and they come from Stanford law school, make sure you sue that lawyer too. One of those. I could see them on the Supreme Court, couldn't you? Could see one of them on the supreme. Can you define a woman? That offends me. But you are one. Only for certain purposes, I'm the first woman this that or the other, then I'm a woman. Otherwise, never referred to as a woman. Well, who do we celebrate the international week of women in the women's day? Women. But you're not a woman. What did you say? Are you harassing me? No, no, no. I'm trying to follow. I need a biologist to tell me if you're a woman. Which means you need to have a checkup. Choose me. What are you inferring? I'm not inferring anything. I'm following the, what do you want from me? I can not tell you what a woman is. That when we're recognized and celebrated, then I'm alive. What about abortion rights quote unquote? I'm a woman. Why do I? Now I'm really, I thought womanhood was between your ears, not between your excuse me. Excuse me, I'm going to call the authorities on you. Listen, I'm the dean of diversity, equity and inclusion. In your approach, your cynicism? Your suggestions? I really triggering me. I'm triggered. You triggered, yes, I'm triggered. Okay, and your opinions? Yes. They've set back the rights of women and wait a minute. Women. And non women. And in between women, they you've set them back decades. Pat go to hell. I'll be right back. Months, love in. On 77 W ABC. You live or work at Connecticut, you get sinus infections, have congestion, or sinus headaches, even sinus pressure and pain. You've already gone to your doctor and visited urgent care over and over again, and it's always the same thing. Oh, I know. Let's try antibiotics, and
Crypto News Alerts | Daily Bitcoin (BTC) & Cryptocurrency News
"stanford law" Discussed on Crypto News Alerts | Daily Bitcoin (BTC) & Cryptocurrency News
"The federal judge has allowed the identities of the guarantees who signed on the securities for former FTX SPF 250 million bond to be made public, following a request from several news outlets, court documents released February 15th, show that the two previously unidentified individuals are Andreas pop peck and senior research scientist at Stanford University, Larry Kramer, a former dean of Stanford law school, interesting, right? The two signed on a series of bankman freed's bail January 25th for 200,500 $1000, respectively that Joseph bankman and Barbara fried SBS parents were the other two parties who signed off on their son's bond in December of 2022, following his arrangement, the two were law professors at Stanford prior to their son's arrest with bankman seemingly becoming more of a target and the FTX bankruptcy case company debtors issued subpoenas on him his son and other insiders February 14th, happy Valentine's Day. And according to a February 15th report from Business Insider, Kramer said he has been friends with bankman and freed since the 1990s and his 500,000 contribution was based on that relationship. It is unclear at the time of publication what connection he may have to bankman fried or his parents, meanwhile, bankman freed's bail conditions restricted him to home arrest at his parents California home, but he has been permitted to leave for court appearances and other allowances, judge Lewis coplin, has amended the SPF bail conditions to include restrictions on accessing certain messaging apps using virtual private networks, VPS, and contacting current and former FTX and Alameda, research employees, 8 major news outlets, petition the judge on January 12th and a letter requesting the court to disclose these names the two individuals that provided mister bankman freed with financial backing, the judge initially granted the petition, but said the release of the guarantees are identified until February 7th to allow time for the SPF legal team to appear. Now, what are your thoughts surrounding this? Let me know in the comments below as SBS criminal trial is scheduled to begin in October while FTX bankruptcy cases ongoing. FTX cofounder Gary Wang and former Alameda research CEO, Caroline Ellison, have already pleaded guilty to certain charges on a reportedly cooperating with authorities, nothing with this SPF case really makes sense because if you think about it, $250 million bail, and these people only paid 500,200 thousand. Was that collectively 700 and something $1000? Where's the rest of the money? Did he even have to come up with the 10% or did they just give him a little slap on the wrist and say, pay what you can? It just makes you wonder, how do you think this is likely to play out for the criminal bank min free? Do you think he will get away with this or it's only a matter of time before he is in prison? Let me know your honest thoughts in the comments right down below, which leads us to our next story of the day, let's discuss Charlie Munger, the official cock blocker for the king crypto. Yeah, he just recently came out with some more nonsense. Berkshire Hathaway vice chairman Charlie Munger continued his insults against crypto and its supporters on Wednesday and during a live stream interview with CNBC at the daily journal's annual shareholder meetings, referencing his recent opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, stating that crypto should be banned, the 99 year old executive insisted there is no rational argument against his position of banning crypto.
This Week In Google
"stanford law" Discussed on This Week In Google
"It's going to be an issue of how transformative that work is. However, the issue around fair use protection becomes confusing when AI is involved in article by the verge last year that there is no direct legal precedent in the U.S. that upholds publicly available training data as fair use, Mark lemley and Brian Casey of Stanford law school published a paper in 2020 about AI datasets and fair use, the paper was supportive of the use of copyrighted material in machine learning platforms. It said, that's a good thing. They wrote fair uses about more than just transforming copyrighted works into new works. It's about preserving our ability to create, share, and build upon new ideas. In other words, it's about preserving the ability to learn whether the entity doing the learning is a person or a robot. So that's the issue. And I don't envy the courts. But honestly, this is why we have copyright law is so that the creator can retain rights to it for a limited period before after which it goes into the public domain so that everybody can use it because all art is based on prior art. Nobody. Nobody creates an a vacuum. Nothing's been original. Just because it's a machine doing it doesn't according to these guys at Stanford law school distinguish it from a human doing it. I looked at a lot of paintings and developed my painting style. You can not then go after me for that. Yeah. Yeah. So this is why it's in fact, if you look at the famous artists like and you look at the early work, they're totally derivative. Artists for like a year in their copy and other artists for a year. And then at some point, they developed their own style. And the same with humans. And they did that through a medium. So for example, if my style of writing has been affected by Hemingway and this person and that person, and I used media to do that magazine's books, things like that. Chat, GPT is a medium like a book to a certain or dally to a certain extent. You could argue that in court, it's just a medium to for a human to be influenced. Because it's human, the prompt engineering part of it is the human creative part when there's output. That's actually going to become this big art form of a prompt engineering. What you say to the AI to make it give you what it gave you. And so it's not clear at all. And I am certain, if I'm certain of anything, is that our Congress is not ready to write these laws. Nope. I think it's going to be the court system. Square degree. That's going to draw the line here. Right. And your article used mid journey images. Do you worry about copyright issues? I don't. Not yet. Where I'm at right now is I'm very clear about where if you look at the caption of that image, this is something that somebody I'm acid on of following macedon did because I wrote about how somebody they asked Chad chip to describe itself physically and that it took those words. Oh, that's cool. This is a prompt for Dolly. And he said, yeah, I did something similar with stable diffusion and look what I got. So this is a self image. You could think of it that way. It's beautiful. But I specified exactly what it was that I'm showing people. And I think that's for now, but if this looks like an HR Geiger illustration, it doesn't. But let's say it did. And HR Geiger came along and said, well, you completely stole that from me. It's certainly based on living human artists. But how close Greg kasky, who is commonly used in prompts, which is upset him. He has, I don't think he's sued yet, but he's definitely been vocal about not being happy about it. I think he has been part of a lawsuit. Okay. Yeah, I think so. He recently claimed that many of his landscape illustrations are being used by stable diffusion, this is the MIT technology review article about that. This artist is dominating AI generated art, and he's not happy about it. But the real question is, can he do anything legally about it? Only one reason. Speaks a lot to the prompts that people are putting in in the imagery people want the type of people. They want this. They want. People are not only taking the ideas from artists, but they're also taking the idea from other prompt engineers. So I've used the tool that I'm most familiar with is drawing one dot AI. And you go there and it's like, look at all these other users who have made these great things. You like this. Here are the words. Here are the prompts that they use. And this is how this is one of the reasons why this particular artist is so heavily used. People are literally copying and pasting what other people have used. Well, it works. You get the result you want. You get this kind of fantastic adventure. You'll get interesting things
Bloomberg Radio New York
"stanford law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"National labor relations board Stanford law professor, really appreciate having your perspective here today. On the show, coming up. Changes are coming to meta as it shifts its algorithm to bring more creators to the platform, creators you may not have heard of before and expand into the metaverse. We'll explain it all next. This is Bloomberg. The markets in focus every business day. The Bloomberg markets podcast with Paul Sweeney and Matt Miller. Are there some sectors that you want to have more or less exposure to? We've got to vaccinate the whole world analysis of the days Wall Street action. What's the thought on apple here from Bloomberg intelligence, Bloomberg opinion and influential newsmaker. The bond market was the boss. Bloomberg markets with Paul Sweeney and Matt Miller. Subscribe today at Bloomberg radio dot com. The Bloomberg business app or iTunes. Before and after the pandemic. Is it driven by politics or by science? That may be how we keep track of our lives from here on out. What do you think the political effects of that impatience will be? And through it all, there's been Bloomberg. We begin on Capitol Hill the most accurate business world and healthcare news before and after. The fundamentals do not justify this price action. Bloomberg radio, the Bloomberg business app and Bloomberg video dot com, Bloomberg, the world is listening. Would you say it's more important to gather information fast or to have it first or to be the most accurate? They can really move the needle when it comes to programs. It's the level of support you get from companies for this. What if you don't have to choose? It also has enormous importance for the labor market. How do they get ahead of different administrations? We see this move towards digital currencies. Bloomberg radio, the Bloomberg business app and Bloomberg radio dot com, Bloomberg the world is listening. We used to take our freedom of movement for granted, not anymore. It's not just that people work for the airlines, and it's natural to feel grateful for the things that kept you going. Does America have a chance to lose our advantage. Can we get to herd immunity? Fast enough, so that will be in good shape. But really, we were just doing our jobs. Oxford University is starting a study on patients who've recovered from COVID, Bloomberg radio, the Bloomberg business app and Bloomberg radio dot com. Bloomberg, the world is listening. Meta has big
860AM The Answer
"stanford law" Discussed on 860AM The Answer
"House press secretary saying this about the Taliban 20 years after the attack on America cut number four. And then the Wall Street Journal is reporting that about 200 folks have been cleared by the Taliban just to clarify. Are you saying that the Taliban is cooperating and get Americans and Afghan allies out of Afghanistan right now? Well, there was I don't know if it requires me saying that it was in the statement, but we just had a plane land in Qatar. That is evidence that we are working. With and to coordinate to get American citizens to get Afghan partners and to get legal permanent residents out and we're hopeful and working to ensure their additional flights to Patsy's earlier question. 20 years after the attack on America. We're retreating from Afghanistan. We have been defeated in Afghanistan and we're dependent upon the good graces of the Taliban. I'm joined now by Lanhee Chan. Stanford Institution scholar and now candidate for California controller. Hello, Lonnie. What were you doing 20 years ago. I was actually living in Washington, D. C. Hugh and I remember vividly, actually 9 11 and the attacks that day and, you know, being downtown trying to get out of living in the bed at the time, actually. And trying to get from downtown D. C back to Bethesda wish at those of you who are listening? Who? No, It's not that long of a drive, you know, usually probably takes about I don't know. 25 30 minutes took me about four hours that day. And afraid the entire time that no doubt isolated from the news and not knowing what was happening around the world. Yeah, And I think that was the hard part as well as just the uncertainty of what was happening that day. But I can't believe it's been 20 years already, and it's remarkable. Can you ever imagine that in those 20 years we would have invaded Afghanistan, defeated the Taliban and then been in turn defeated by the Taliban retreated and left Americans behind. Well, what we've seen the last You know, several weeks has been heartbreaking, in my view, and, uh, to go through everything we've been through over the last 20 years. To go through all of the different ups and downs. All of the courageous people who have gone to Afghanistan, uh to fight and to do the right thing there and then to see how it ended. Really? That that part to me is so tragic. And it seems to me here it was avoidable. Quite frankly, you know, all of what we've seen the way in which it was executed. That to me is the most disappointing part of all of this, And you know, history will still be written about this. There's a lot left to be said about it. I'm sure we'll dig into what happened. But From where I stood today. Um, it sure feels like it's an awful empty feeling seeing what we've seen. Now, Lonnie, you're running for comptroller in California. They have a recall election concluding next week. It's underway. Right now. I urge people to vote. Yes, I've endorsed Larry Elder in the second question. I'm afraid the YouTube Democrats going to win if the Republicans scatter their votes around. I was originally on his stay on the sidelines because they're all good Republicans, but they don't want the Youtuber to win. What do you think has been the impact of this? And what do you think about Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, campaigning in California in the middle of a hostage crisis in Afghanistan? Well, First of all, I think the most important thing about this recall election. We've always known that this was going to be about turnout. It was going to be about which side was more animated and energize. And so it is crucially important to your point view. If people in California have ballots, Um and they have not returned them have not voted them yet. They need to do so. And they need to make their voices heard. I think it's absolutely clear that Gavin Newsom has mishandled a number of things in the state of California, and that's why this week call elections happening in the first place. You had millions of Californians who were demanding his recall. And of those millions who initially demanded his recall. There's been an effort by Democrats to frame this as a Republican recall. The reality is Over 30% of people who submitted recall petitions in the first place. We're independent or Democrat And so this is an effort that really is about Gavin Newsom's failed leadership. I do think that, of course, now you're seeing the politics come in all of these Democrats campaigning on behalf of Newsome. He's bringing in all these people because he recognizes he's in deep trouble. And that's the only reason why you've got Barack Obama cutting ads for Gavin Newsom. My Kamala Harris has come out why Joe Biden may come out. It seems to me that Biden and Harris both should focus on the challenges they've got in front of them, and they are many of them rather than traveling all the way to California. To try and save a guy who, frankly, as I noted, his leadership has been trouble during this time. Now, Lonnie, What is your website for people who want to get involved with sort of a progressive conservative, meaning a center? Right? Conservative like I am your pro vaccine. You're pro getting the country back to work your pro free enterprise and opportunity. What's the What's the website? People should visit Chen for California dot com. C h E N F o r calif dot com I'm running for comptroller, which is the chief financial officer of the state of California lots of things that we can do to get the state In a better position fiscally, and that's really what I'm focused on. And that's why I'm running for this office. I think it starts a hue with getting that part right, making sure that we're doing the basic blocking and tackling. Helping people understand what is our state spend money on? How can we be more efficient? How can we do things better? How can we spend smarter and that's why I'm running. I think you could really help the homeless problem. A great deal with some fiscal oversight. Let me close by asking you a very good lawyer, Lonnie. People don't know this teaches at Stanford Law School's at the Hoover Institution. I am very pro vaccine. I want to urge everyone Please get vaccinated. You're at risk if you don't But I am also a constitutional law professor. And I believe the president acted unconstitutionally last night in mandating businesses to mandate vaccines when those businesses have no connection to the federal government. What do you think, Lon? He I'm concerned about the executive overreach that we've seen, by the way. This is the problem we have with Gavin Newsom in California. Yes, the same problem we've had with the presidency as well. Which is the overreach of executive power. And there are things that are meant for the legislative branch is a policy that are meant for Congress to pass and the president to sign, and I think there's any number of different things that fall into that category. There's no question in my mind here. People should get vaccinated. I think it's a good thing to do. But at the end of the day, uh, there are things that people can do because of their own free volition. And there are things that can they have to do because government tells them, uh, this is one of those situations where I am concerned about the use of executive power like you here. Ronnie, Good to talk to you. Thank you, my friend Chen C h e N. For California. Don't forget it. 12 Great sponsor the show all these years since 9 11. Relief factor dot com..
Diffused Congruence: The American Muslim Experience
"stanford law" Discussed on Diffused Congruence: The American Muslim Experience
"The situation in afghanistan the situation in iraq the fact that we were constantly bombarded with the discussion about muslims both in america and abroad. And what that meant. And i think that that is what finally drove me to sort of say. I was fed up with the run of the male. Practice that I've become accustomed to and that brings you to the Usip right the united states institute of peace. Love for you to talk or or or taylor listeners. Kind of what that is about what the organization with the institute is about and obviously your work there. I know you do sort of two different roles One that is here stateside in when actually that actually you know. Has you on the ground as well. First off i should. I should emphasize that before i joined. usip my my first Entry into this field was on behalf of stanford law school Stanford was being funded by the state department to Stand up a legal studies program at the american university in kabul and i became their first fulltime postdoctoral fellow so my job was to help edit their textbooks to bring to bear some of my understanding of islam law which i was teaching at the time at the university of colorado and previously at the university of wyoming and from there i spent time in country helping to develop a program interacting with students and it got it. Also got me in front of people like general stanley mcchrystal Who at the time was presiding over and in running the show on the on their behalf of the coalition. Yeah sorry you got none of Question i was just gonna say so. The I was curious though like even growing up the had you ever been back to had you ever visited a Growing up i never been to afghanistan. Get never been totally. okay But i had been the bogside many times. I've been to this area. I've been to the area near the afghan border new. Jack got married there You know just only a few years right. After my first year law school so So is always. There's always a close affinity. Between what i grew up with however understood my perspective in the world as being the senate immigrants but also seeing the world as much smaller place that I think had a really important effect on me. And of course being a third year law student after not during nine eleven brought all of that to focus and what was perhaps the most important finding all that was this ongoing but frankly Narrow discourse about muslims islam in america and that really was the pushing point to make me want to serve in some way shape or form now of course in that in as a student. You don't always know those things but as time came about i found a place so i'd love to now kind of us a chance to talk about what you're seeing and how what you saw at that time your experiences what you saw how that fed into where we are today specifically what was going on and we're going positively negatively all the way up to the point where now than in two twenty nine thousand nine. I believe trump decides. Hey we need to make a deal with with the taliban Air change course right and and biden ends up doubling down. I'd love to hear about your experience in then kind of how that plays into kind of the last couple of years politically well as was mentioned before after my first year in afghanistan i went back and this time as as in on behalf of a us government entity known as the institute appease Specifically with the goal of building up their building up the afghan capacity on Rule of law and specifically i was tasked with a number of different Issues issues as perhaps his mundane to sell them on constitutional interpretation figuring. Out who in afghanistan's government really had the ultimate say of what the constitution meant. But i also had some really interesting topics that really spoke to me on a different level at one of them was a project on. What is islam. Say about the thorny questions of post conflict justice and if listeners if they're thinking what what is post conflict justice look like a variety of foreign forums where this has been discussed the nuremberg trials at afterward to perhaps the most infamous but then also south africa's truth and reconciliation committee and we were confronted. We want us to tackle this issue from a different perspective. What does islam as a religion. Say to the question. About post-conflict rick reconciliation. How do we talk about. How do we talk about a society moving on. So that's to me away on a deeper level. Because what i also saw when i also believe personally in my experience in afghanistan is that one of the transcendental issues that affects afghanistan's longevity whether it be to the taliban or the current government or frankly all the previous attempts hits abbas governance is the way in which islam islamic identity is the binding force for many of the afghan people. It is what given them a great deal of say in their future. It's also an important System for many people and of course we're not just limited to afghanistan. We're also talking about you. Know one point. Seven billion people people here in the united states people across the world but the reason why it spoke to me and i think It it drove a lot of my work for the next five. Years is because i believed in i in in many are also convinced that this That the real way to get at Afghanistan's future was to look at values in which everybody could come to an agreement about everyone could could come to a consensus that we may not all agree on the jeffersonian institution's of democracy. We may not agree on the style of court whether it be a french court of cassation or in american supreme court but we could agree on the principles that islam teaches us about a variety of different things. And i think that that is what was the guiding principle of by work Both in country and in the subsequent in and you wrote about this Last week i believe in in an article leaving the usa today. Called taliban doesn't equal slum. How new news coverage of ghanistan deserves a great religion and my question is between that ideal of the possibility of the of the people you know learning the greatest ideals of islam. What was what was the was the gap between that ideal in what you were saying on the ground in reality if any you know it's a contest really perhaps there is no ideal that we can all sort of wrap our hands around except for the ideal set forth by the prophet muhammad. And this idea that we live under as muslims about what does the prophets guidance. Tell us what that actually means But.
Mark Levin
Higher Education Is the Breeding Ground of American Marxism
"Those of you who have it these some, like 300,000 of you. It's I start on page 3 58 Excuse me, 2 58. Higher education presents its own set of difficulties and challenges. It is the breeding ground of American Marxism were tenured Marxists and radical professors rule the roost. Be the most subversive colleges and universities should be subjected to the kind of BDs movement its students and graduates often unleashed against others. I can't go over territory we've already discussed BDs. I've discussed at some length. There are opportunities for real pushback number one. In the first place. Any parent who is involved in financially supporting a child's tuition to attend Ecology University must at least attempt to exercise some control over the child's decision. About which school he or she will attend. Here. We have real school choice, and the decision is whether the choice will be a wise one. That's the parent must become intimately familiar with the school's reputation for academic freedom, free speech, traditional education and the like, or whether it is a hotbed of Marxist radicalism and intolerance. Moreover, even if you are not assisting financially with tuition, a parent should still use his or her influence to help direct and guide their child's decision. In addition, if your child may have been accepted into an Ivy League school, you should not be hypnotized by its name and pass reputation. For example, I'm on critical race theories, most ardent founders where Harvard and Stanford law professors Now, as discussed at length earlier in an earlier
WBSM 1420
"stanford law" Discussed on WBSM 1420
"I don't know what it is, you know, throwing breaks another time people write me. You should do this on your show. You should have this guest. Don't forget to mention us. Don't Who want Has the brass wants to bother it? Talk show host about this. That's an amazing thing. An amazing thing. People constantly tell me how to do my job. I had to do a show. I move on your the audience here who I care about. Trying to unravel what Obama did in this whole effort here. There were many Prominent critics of CRT. Critical race theory. One of the most important ones to me was the late Reverend Martin Luther King, Junior's chief of staff, confident and friend is closest Confidante. Dr Wyatt T. Walker. Walker was a legend in the civil rights movement in his own right. His friend and frequent collaborator in the school choice movement. Steve Clint Ski Right. So Walker was King's field general in the organized resistance. Against notorious Birmingham Birmingham Safety Commissioner Bull Connor. I'm not gonna read this whole thing, too. But why is this significant Because Walker had nothing but contempt for critical race theory. He was disgusted with it. In critical race. The irritations were disgusted with him. And the civil rights movement. Remember what I said earlier. About what Marcus had said. Marcos said that this is nothing but an effort to create. A tolerant society proved to prevent the proletariat from rising up and overthrowing this country. Well, of course, they have nothing but contempt for the Civil Rights Act of 64, the Civil Rights Act of 65 Martin Luther King himself, although only a few of them will admit that Martin Luther King's confidant sought and he know it. Because he's not a Marxist. And so this is what He's being talked to your Children. This is what's being peddled to your Children again. I'm not going to go into it anymore or page after page of the page and putting the book down, you understand my point. They reject all the progress that's been made because from their perspective, it's nothing more. Nothing more than an effort to prevent a full blown Marxist violent revolution. That is their belief. How do I know? Because I've read it. One scholar after another. I've read Marcos, just like the new leftist read Marcus. And he's not the only one Derrick Bell. He'd been a professor at Stanford Law School than Harvard Law School. They don't hide their views their way out there for everyone to read. And so when you have these apologists on TV, and you have an apologist Obama Whose bodies were domestic terrorists whose bodies Well, Mark, whose followers Nobody knows better than Barack Obama. What critical race theory is what critical theory is. Because he was pals with domestic terrorists. Who are also followers of Marcus and the new left movement. And that man was elected president of the United States for eight years. While they trashed Trump, and they trashed all the Republicans and sister big issue Now we got a lot of big issues, pal. A lot of them, but they're sure as hell is one of the mic. I cover many in the book. Thought you'd want to be aware of it. I'll be right back. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to ask you a question. Did you know withdrawing your cash from the bank can be very risky. That's right. I said it. Let me educate you about this. Banks are now required to spy on us for the government and the report. Any behavior they think is suspicious, man. Oh, man, I was shocked as I read the Secret War on cash from Swiss America..
Opening Arguments
"stanford law" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"We read the first part of this about by the way. This email was sent. So so this was sent as an email on the internal stanford law student list-serve right. So it's like couple hundred. People who were law students. Professors have access to this right. That that's at this. Is this basically the equivalent of like posting in the campus quad. Right and the f- the fake flyer was sent around on january. Twenty fifth. Three weeks after the capital insurrection. Right so that no. I know possible. Danger that anybody thinking about this for a tenth of a second could thought that this was a real event but the you read. You're not carefully you miss. The riott information will be email. You missed the grubhub coupon. Here's the tech this. The full text read this. Because it's delightful please join the stanford federalist society as we welcome senator josh hawley and texas attorney. General ken paxton to discuss violent insurrection. Violent insurrection also known as doing a coup is a classical system of installing a government although widely believed conflicted every way with the rule of law. Violent insurrection can be an effective approach to upholding the principle of limited government. Senator hollywood argue that the ends justify the means attorney. General paxton will explain that when the supreme court refuses to exercise. Its article three authority. To overturn the results of a free and fair election calling on violent mob capital represents an appropriate alternative alternative remedy. Is it satire. That led somebody whose name has been redacted to protect this person and others from stanford's federalist society to file a one and a half page complaint with the university Accusing this student. Nicholas n wallace who By the way like once his name to be public right like he's he's communicated with mark stern from sleep like that's why we're using his name and not the cowards who who wrote this. It says on january twenty fifth twenty twenty one at eight thirty eight. am nicholas wallace. Sent an email to stanford law school's law talk email list serve where he impersonated the stanford federal society a student group through a false event flyer and attributed false and defamatory beliefs to the persons that he listed on the event flyer Then it describes the situation It says he clearly impersonated by labeling. It as being the stanford federalist society presents and you know use their logo and this is easily recognizable to other students and then a complaint that the end other student groups have asked to cancel joint events planned with the federalist society as a result of the controversy greeted by this email. Good and we. As officers of the organization feel that our individual reputations have been heart so federalist society stalwart defenders of freedom of speech whined about a parody email it caused stanford to not only open up disciplinary proceedings. against nicholas wallace but that placed a hold on his graduation is in the middle of finals. Week right and i can tell you like look even as a three al like you. Ca- your finals are hard you care about cramming for finals and you know the difference between getting good grades rally you know. Are you graduating with honors. Look it is. It is a hundred percent clear how this materially interferes with a Graduating students Expectations from the university. You can't registered to take the bar if yeah they've got a hold on your diploma right like all sorts of things now. The good news is thanks. Only right to mark. Joseph stern of slate magazine. Who broke the story yesterday. As we are recording this today he was contacted by stanford spokesperson Who says that. The school has dropped the investigation And then nick wallace center around an email to the entire serve list-serve that says I just wanted to let you know that the office of community standards has dropped the complaint against me. the degree conferral hold has been lifted from my count. Thank you for your support and personal messages in satirical law talk emails and so many other ways you've shown what a wonderful community we have over here. I hope that's not the end of the conversation. We've been having with that in mind. I hope to work with stanford in the little time that i have left to make sure no other students objected to an abuse of process in this way again and to develop better protections for students freedom of expression. Thanks for your support. Ps this email is not satire. it so again. Let's explain the significance of that. Unquestionably under the leonard law nicholas wallace had a knock dead just a one hundred percent. Likelihood of success of suing stanford right. Yeah could have well fortunate though. Andrew is that there aren't any lawyers that this law school to be able to. You know say liked evaluate the law this poor law school. How would they know the lied. I don't understand how the law school supposed to know that. This is obviously free speech. That's legal in every context and ever. So how'd they know there's poor poor lost weight their law school. God i can't. I've seen all the tweets it's good. There's been a lot of response. I think laurence tribe was like. Hey isn't this a law school. Essentially like lord strips mocking an ideologically based group can't be made a basis for denying academic privileges in any open society. Where the respect if accurate this report shows stanford law school to be unworthy of treatment as an academic institution. Okay student complaint. You should investigate complaints. The school should have been like. Why don't we take take complaints seriously. Want to make sure everything's going above board here. Nobody's harassing anybody or anything bad. And then you look at me like oh okay dismiss. Like you know should have been like a one week process. Yup yup god. Yeah no that that is exactly right and and again right. Let's let's be clear about this that this was sent the same day january twenty fifth right so yeah it does not take four months to look at a flyer that is very very clearly meets the first amendment standards for parody right. We have talked about that right. Like the that is the falwell v flint case right that is a parody ad for campari liqueur. That uses the logo of camp about like. It's totally obvious that nobody reading it would think like jerry. Falwell really gave an interview to playboy hustler magazine. In which he intimated that the first time he had sexual intercourse with his mom in the outhouse after they'd kicked out the goat just like nobody could look at this and think that the stanford federalist society wanted to time travel to give out cookies. So that you know you like or even if they did like yeah that is kind of would look. This is at so. Let's let's say though. If you don't mind so i thought you're gonna take us through a further legal history. That would lead us to not that current state of. Are you telling me that. Even today in california school universities you can say anything that is protected outside universities and never face discipline from the university for it as long as it wouldn't be illegal speech so i will read you. The few exceptions that are contained within the leonard law. Right so i already read you a b. Is what gives you the right to sue and says that you can get attorney's fees see says this does not apply to an institution that is controlled by a religious organization because of course it doesn alan to the extent that the application of the section would not be consistent with a religious tenets of the organization so again. Remember when. You're right wing. Uncle frank is talking. About how much liberals hate the first amendment religious right wing organizations went to the legislature and said. Yeah we went the first amendment apply everywhere. I mean not to us of course and that the worst most restrictive most horrendous speech codes anywhere are those imposed by right wing. Evangelical.
Opening Arguments
"stanford law" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"So so that's that's what the court said right now that we're treating speech inside a college campus exactly identical to each on the street. The standard is incredibly narrow and none of the considerations that you might think would come into play on a college campus would come into play here and we cannot prohibit you from saying hateful racist stuff unless that hateful racist stuff is like you know you're screaming at an inch away from someone's face right and therefore likely to meet the fighting words standard. But yeah you. Would you want to organize a big. You know neo nazi parade. Great go it and this isn't just like in the i know we've talked in previous college cases before like the public square if something's like the quad or whatever you know the it's not just that we're we're talking. We're talking in california because of that. Particular leonard law writing it is a college cannot discipline a student for engaging in speech that they could engage in if they were not on the college campus. Right so that's so. That's the test right. Would this otherwise be protected. Speech in a different context chase it is. Yeah and that's a by names like a tough way to run a school. What things work like that schools. Don't work that way. Your job doesn't work that way. That's not how anything works corrected. This start with good place. Was this out of the lake liberal free speech movement or we hope this was directly as a result. Right nine hundred ninety two. This was a direct result to college. Campus speech codes. Wow that's why. They passed the law to say colleges in california. Can't have them anymore. They cannot have a code of conduct. that prohibits certain kind of speech for the benefit of an educational institution. Even if it is you know of the sort that i described previous stanford right bizarre so bizarre but okay. You're thinking alright. Well what that means is those republicans are die. Hard first amendment. Free speech is right like you you get to. Do you get to say on campus anything that you could say off-campus this show is brought to you by x. Chair you know. I've said it a million times i'm in my x. Chair right now. It is a comfy place from which to deliver you this message. I love x. Chair i have never had an office chair. That feels this amazing in my life. It's so comfortable that i can and i need to sit for hours and get work done. Get recording done. Get editing done. The secret is there patented dynamic variable lumbar. Which is d. v. l. support which offers unbelievable lumbar support to my lower back. But now also thanks to their new x h. m. t. technology. I can get heat in. The sasha's therapy while i'm sitting at my desk instead of my old uncomfortable office chair now. I look forward to.
Opening Arguments
"stanford law" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Case. You rest your case what i thought. That was just a figure of speech case closed. All right let's talk about The actual only cancel culture. That really exists in our society which is right wing cancel culture And i won't go into an entire thing. Andrew research the alleged left-wing cancel culture. The stories are badly misrepresented and aren't at all what the You know the. I d w conservative. Whoever's ben shapiro's are saying they are and then when there's an actual like right wing canceling it's fairly severe. It's for example. States are right now passing laws saying you can't teach critical race. They're they're banning books essentially they're banning education like actual using real power to actually cancelled people by law. That seems to be the symmetry that i see. Let's see if this is an example of this that you may have heard of this really funny a flyer that was put out by a student as so why don't you. Why don't you give us the details of this. Sandra yeah so we're gonna we're gonna back into it but doesn't hurt the lead with. This is an absolutely hilarious parody that stamford law student. Three graduating lawsuit. Nick wallace created that said the stanford federalist society presents the originalist case for inciting insurrection To be held. Wednesday january sixth from forty five pm to two pm and that quote riot information will be emailed. The morning of the you'd better get to the ground coupon. Yeah that's right. It says the first thirty students to rsvp receive a dollar groveling compa to be used on the day of the event disaster. but i. it's it look at. It reminded me of sort of a less funny. But still obviously perot article graphic and mean that made its way around a about a year ago. This time that was like the you know antiga barbecue and face painting right and again. Yeah no right. That was very good sunny. Yeah it's it's that's reasonably funny right. It was like yeah. show up. we're going you know. Teach you how to you know. Burn government buildings and they'll be face painting tent for the kids right so okay. I think we're both very plainly on the side of let people parody as terms of political. Free speech shocker. The extreme right-wing is absolutely not on board with your right to make fun of the federalist society. We're going to get all the way through that. By the way do we need to teach the federal society about the first amendment like. Isn't that their whole thing. Do those amendments thought because weirdly despite the fact that you know of these individuals involved. We'll have like proud one eight defender on their twitter profiles They mean that. And i want to be very very clear about this. They mean that only when they're talking about protecting your right to say racist things k. And lest you think. I'm being hyperbolic in that i. I want us to time. Travel back to the nineteen seventies for just a minute. So pre nineteen seventy college. Campuses were basically places for white men that with the exception of historically women's colleges largely in massachusetts which were places for white women. And we've talked about that. This question has come up. Talked about like law school. At how few we just answered a Cuban question on you know how few women there are in the law. It's still two to one men in twenty twenty one So you know that this is again on a lawyer timeline. fifty years ago is still reasonably. Recent history in the nineteen seventies was when colleges started significantly increasing and recruiting minority applicants. Women and members of of racial minorities shocker as colleges were reaching out to women and minority students. And i'll include the link to this in the show notes Quote as a result of expanded recruiting efforts incidents of racist homophobic and sexist harassment to colleges also increased so what colleges began to do to respond to this threat on campuses by the way. This is something about which. I have changed my mind. One hundred percent in the course of doing this show in the course of actually looking at the laws Is they they crafted college. Campus speech codes and those speech codes the the first one crafted by the university of wisconsin prohibited offensive or intolerance speech directed at individuals and groups on the basis of their race color religion ethnicity disability sex age sexual orientation and then later gender identity right. So i'm gonna i'm gonna x. Explicitly talk about the at stanford. Because you know this federalist society cases also a stanford case right so in the nineteen eighties. Stamford's speech code prohibited quote discriminatory intimidation by threats of violence. That that's a that's a separate crime and also includes personal vilification of students on the basis of their sex race color handicap religion sexual orientation or national and ethnic. Or that's the only part. That's not a speech code. That doesn't prohibit an explicit crime. You would say what counts. As personal vilification. Personal vilification was defined in the speech code as speech that a is intended to insult or stigmatize an individual or small number of individuals on the basis of their characteristics sex race color pablo and be is directed is addressed directly to the individual or individuals to whom it insults or stigmatizes and see mixed the use of insulting or fighting words or non verbal symbols k. So that's it so so think about the things that does not prevent right that does not prevent student a from telling a gross racist joke to student be so long as it's too white kids you know telling those student jokes. Wow it does not prevent student a from developing and discussing in a class talking about. I mean the bell curve hadn't been written yet but yeah if you wanted to express a gross racist wrong opinion. If you wanted to say you know. I think that there is you know white genocide going on in the united states right now and i think historic right and and say white nationalist stuff in your class that is not addressed directly to the individual or individuals to stick with so so it is. This is truly as minor minimum. Yeah and look the reason for that. We talked about this before we talked about. Mari matsuda groundbreaking work words that wound. The reason is as you are attempting to get to a critical mass of minority students on a college campus right you. You don't go from zero percent to wherever that is ten percent fifteen percent whatever overnight like somebody is going to be right. The first african american students on campus for the first two were the first three. And that's the time we that's been a tough thing to do. Yeah real tough in every field 'em so to say. Hey maybe on a campus. That's ninety eight percent white. You shouldn't find the handful of black people and stand in front of them and say insulting things on the basis of their race. That's literally all the speech code says as a result of this and as a result of the free market inaction there were approximately seventy five universities with speech codes by nineteen ninety that went to three hundred by nineteen ninety-one so basically everywhere right. This became the best practice for secondary edge. You know post secondary college education. Everybody adopted this idea that you could now no longer directly insult to their face. Minority members led republicans to freak the hell out and so Republican bill leonard of california State senator wrote. What is today called the leonard law in nineteen ninety two it is section nine four three six seven of the california education code and it says no private post secondary educational institution shall make or enforce a rule subjecting student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct or speech or other communication that when engaged in outside of the campus of or facility of the private postsecondary institution is protected from government restriction by the first amendment or by section to article one of the california constitution which is california's first amendment and then creates a right of action in which you can get your attorney's fees if a school violates those provisions immediately upon passage of this leonard law a group of individuals led by robert corey. I think was a student at stanford. But but i don't know and the he says i don't know is because what we have is a court is a trial court's order a state trial courts order on a preliminary injunction from thirty years ago. So you know like this is really hard to find stuff. It's not available on On west law but hey. The case was called corey versus stamford they moved for a preliminary injunction and the court granted it and the courts reason so preventing stanford from enforcing its speech code. Now that they'd pass the leonard law and the reason was that. The speech code prohibits not just the kind speech that is prohibited by fighting by the supreme court's fighting words doctrine right which is likely to lead imminent lawless action. Right which or the way this court put. It will not only calls people to react violently but also caused them to feel insulted or stigmatized. The speech code punishes words that are commonly understood to convey hatred and contempt on the basis of race religion cetera. Clearly this focuses on the content of the words all that is required under the speech. Code is at the words convey a message of hatred and contempt not that they will likely cause an imminent breach of the peace by prescribing. Those words the speech code fails to meet the very narrow fighting words standard set forth in the and the the principal came from this is chip linski versus new hampshire from the supreme court. So so that's that's what the court said right now that we're treating speech inside a college campus exactly identical.
Opening Arguments
"stanford law" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"And welcome opening arguments. This is zoned. Four hundred and ninety six. I'm thomas that's andrew. How're you doing. Sir i am fantastic. Thomas and i really mean that i've got a terrible announcement andrew. Okay i've shut down my blog after. Yeah so i had a blog. And then i realized it wasn't two thousand and five so right right and you're not and you're not a lawyer like apparently ninety. Five percent of the legal are all still blocked. Oh yeah it's like. There's a category for blogs there's a category for like you know faxes i think ham radio broadcasts but didn't win one of those blog awards and so you had to shut his bog down. It's a heartbreaking. Truly a heartbreaking tale. I laughed out loud when i saw the news. Should his point and it really goes yo n serious though. It goes to show that the twitter ban is real at does work worked with milo yiannopoulos going trump. I don't think he can win. In two thousand twenty four without social media now. I do think that they will just find an excuse to put them back and then he'll steal but so don't think i'm like some huge optimist but if somehow executor berg already led him back but the twitter guy if he didn't let trump back i actually think it's a huge blow to trump and the evidence of that is he has a pathetic blog that no one read and then he shut down after twenty. What twenty eight. I think social science research agrees with your Your well let's get to the law for today. We've got some really interesting stuff. You wanna tell some people what we're not covering today. Do i want to tell people to things. We're not covering today right. So i i a dozen of you have emailed me about the stephen danziger case. We're aware of it but all of the things that you find interesting about that case are things that were not qualified to evaluate yet. Right like the. Diz you know the conditions of the house arrest and xyz. And i will tell you stevens on. Danziger is not somebody who's without voice right. He's been on the daily show. The house progressive caucus including jamie raskin has formally asked the doj to investigate his disbarments so the likelihood that we will get public information in the form of documents that we can review and then cover is reasonably high. And you know policy the show like you. Don't need us to regurgitate facts. That are out there in other media outlets that are not you know part of legal documents document out there for andrew scrooge mcduck into. he's not covering. You told me that explicitly when we started by like reading words. What all right. But secondly next week our goal is to make a one hundred percent sharable episode with your uncle frank or with anybody in your family or friend of circle circle of friends who is involved in or is considering a christian healthcare sharing ministry. It is a huge scam. It's way worse than you think. It has nothing to do with whether you know like you. And i whether you're atheist or not like no one should be involved in this. I'm going to tell the story of like why this came on my radar. This totally irresponsible piece for market. While all that good stuff and you know hopefully you can You can share that out in scarce straight some of your family members into not participating in in those kinds of programs. Yeah we may have disagreements here with your uncles frank but If you care about your uncle frank you probably don't want them to get taken in by huge scam so this is this is probably good for everybody. If you tune in nexta next show okay. Let's.
Make Me Smart with Kai and Molly
"stanford law" Discussed on Make Me Smart with Kai and Molly
"I love you start. Art so mind is kind of awesome. We've all heard about an emmy osaka. tennis player. Who withdrew from the french. Open after Having explained that she suffers from sometimes a terrible anxiety. She's been through depression And that facing the press after matches was tough for her and and get into the whole you know how badly the major tournaments mishandled it and all of these things but the good news out of this. Is that the Meditation app com Never wanting to opportunity actually to brand itself Now that say this out loud has said number one. We support naomi osaka right which is great. Also we will pay fines for people who choose to opt out of any of the grand slams for mental health. Recent which you know yes branding and you gotta spend money to make Brand capital. But i think that's a good thing and i think you know for her to do this. And let's hope kickstarts conversation as you said molly the other day about mental health being just health. You know to south totally. Yeah i it also just shows to your original to your starting place like how badly this was miss. I'm so fascinated by these organizations that sort of think that like. Maybe they think that no one's gonna find out about this. I'm also thinking of stanford law school interview with one of its students. Graduation because The federalist society of that school complained about his satirical treatment of them was couldn't be more first amendment protection and then they were like we're gonna mess with your graduation did like that. And the and the major tournaments do they go into a room and a that. That is a good idea and then be thinking. No one's ever going to hear about it. I look i think they've got really highly paid communications and marketing people who said yep. This is the way to go. Draw the hardline. Crackdown don't take any questions. At the press conference all that stuff. Yeah that's exactly. What and somehow. They couldn't see that. That was going to backfire. Then these brands. And i'm sorry just got to be generational because then these millennial oriented brands come along millennial and gen z oriented brands. Come along in the like. Yeah that's not how the world works anymore guys. It's really not gonna keep i. I got excited today. About the return of supersonic flight which was pretty sick in twenty. Twenty-nine carbon-neutral supersonic flight and apparently united said. It's gonna buy fifteen of these planes from this company. Called boom supersonic which they they have not been built certified yet so it's really just like it's exciting in carbon neutral like awesome. You know supersonic flight is neat. And then i found the story about these fishermen who Found a floating two hundred eighty pound chunk of whale vomit. Which i would have thought happened time. And it doesn't and when you find a chunk like that you haul it in and then you sell it for a million and no you don't. This is the craziest thing ever heard of me. Life will vomit is also known as amber greece an odor an odor substance found only in the digestive systems of sperm whales. It is often called the treasure of the sea or quote floating gold. Because it's so rare. It's used to make perfume sense last longer. And all these other things and so these these these thirty five. I like this story. They've found this chunk of this angry steph so the vermillion half dollar share the profits equally and then they've bought like homes cars and boats off the whale vomit windfall. This next part is great while they were telling you back to shore the crew determine there might be emigres in the whale stomach because of the strong smell of marine fecal odor that the substance emits and we perfumes Ever vm's good good job. Those dudes and nobody killed anybody. They just shared the money and gossip new cars houses and boats. And i love this story. I like never know love that one. All right we are gonna go. That is for thursday. See we feel better. I do anyway. Do excellent mission accomplished make me smile mission accomplished. Don't forget to sign up for the make me smart newsletter to keep on learning unexpected things which is also jammed on the shelf This week actually. It is pride month and so we're taking a closer look at the history of pride and the movement for lgbt. A i a equality back. Tomorrow is what we are economics on tap that extreme all that usual friday jazz. Three thirty our time. Six thirty on the other coast. And whatever time you can figure out by looking at a world clock just siri. That's how i do. It does right. That's right make smart is produced and directed by melissa cabrera. Tony wagner is our digital producer. Arthur phillips newsletters also are making smart explainers. None this week right erica to track. I'm gonna do right now doing it right now right after this now right this second. Today's program was engineered by leon Panic just a minute thinking. I was going to be like molly would welcome back. To make smart ben tolliday daniel ramirez composer theme music donna. Tam is the senior producer. Who said she couldn't have stopped us from starting the show even if she wanted to the executive director of on demand. This attorney s update. I do not have any explainers. Do mal you do have to do is to ju in.
The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss
"stanford law" Discussed on The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss
"You guys have heard it before. And i'm getting get straight to this guest because we are going to run out of time before we run out of material. My guest today is catherine. That's with an r. y. n. commonly known as katie han h. a. u. n. on twitter at katie katie i e underscore hawn h. a. u. n. She is a general partner at andriessen horwitz previously. She spent a decade as a federal prosecutor. Folks on fraud cyber and corporate crime alongside agencies including the sec fbi treasury sh- created the government's first cryptocurrency task force and led investigations into the amount. Gawks hack might talk about what that is and the corrupt agents on the silk road task force. I have quite a few questions about that wall with the us department of justice. Katie prosecuted rico. Murders will define that organized crime public corruption gangs and money laundering. So lots of good guys. In other words. She also held senior policy positions at justice department headquarters in both the national security division and attorney. General's office where her portfolio included antitrust tax and national security while in the private sector katie's testified before both the house and senate on intersection of technology and regulation katie. Serves on the boards of joint base and hacker one and has invested in and advised tech companies from seed to series east age she teaches management course at stanford business school and previously taught cybercrime at stanford law school. Kid he clerked for us. Supreme court justice anthony kennedy and is an honors graduate of stanford law school. She is a lifetime member of the council on foreign relations katie. Welcome to the show. Tim thanks for having me great to be here. I am so excited to chat for so many reasons. And i thought i would just set the tone for people listening with a few lines from our mutual friend of all ravikant news as certainly a crowd and listener. Favorite here on the podcast. I emailed divall to ask. There might be any questions or subjects that would be interesting to explore with katie and of course indicating that i would do my own homework and he replied with the following i asked him if i could give attribution and he said yes you can cite me to. Here's what he said was his his very concise response quote. She has a concealed. carry group in cairo. Can't set foot in. Russia dealt with a lot of violent criminals etc. But she's also suburban mom with kids and runs the number one hard-charging vc fund and crypto. She's quite the character. If i'm down to one phone call instead of calling my lawyer calling katie. So on top of that you seem to be the child whisper from another mutual friend suna and she talked about how incredible you are with children's so we are going to run out of material. I think very easily. And i want to start with you with the silk road so the silk road is of great interest to me for a lot of reasons and principal among those is the fact that i used to work many days a week out of glen park library in san francisco and and so for those who don't know the the founder of the silk road who used the handle dread pirate roberts of course an allusion to the character from the princess bride was apprehended in glen park library on a day. I happened just not to be there so the not to be not there..
KQED Radio
"stanford law" Discussed on KQED Radio
"It's 7 30. Live from KQED news. I'm Brian What California's program to house homeless people in hotels will now be fully reimbursed by the federal government until September. The Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA, says it's also going to pay local governments retroactively to the beginning of the pandemic. KQED is Molly Solomon has more It was welcome news for cities and counties, which up until now have been picking up 25% of the tab. San Francisco's hotel program cost 15 to $18 million a month. According to the mayor's office last year, the city considered closing the program because of fears the FEMA funding would run out, say Francisco supervisor Matt Haney. FEMA taking this position and paying for these room retroactively is the statement that bringing people in was the right thing to do and is the right thing to do moving forward. It's unclear how this will impact the city's budget, which is facing a multi million dollar deficit. But it could bring more people off the streets. Mayor London Breed has directed staff to consider acquiring more hotels to expand the program. I'm Molly Solomon KQED NEWS San Francisco School District officials say the lawsuit filed against them by the city over continued classroom closures during the pandemic. Is a waste of precious time. The city filed the suit yesterday. It alleges that the district in school board violated state law for failing to have a clear plan to restart in person learning. Belkovsky is a professor of education and law at Stanford Law School, he says. It's unusual for a city to bring this kind of suit against the school district. Whether or not it slows down, opening up school district's I'm not so sure it Z maybe ago that will get this process to move forward quicker and maybe find ways that folks can come together and actually get things done. The district has been in negotiations with school district unions over ways to make in person learning safer, including more testing, contact tracing school ventilation systems and vaccines. Governor Gavin Newsom says he won't name a nominee for California attorney general until current eggy Javier Becerra is confirmed as President Joe Biden's new health secretary. KQED POLITICS reporter Guy Marja Roddy has more and a Wednesday press conference with East Bay officials. Newsome joke that California's next top law enforcement officer Might be within earshot. I think there are five candidates for attorney general behind me. All eyes turned to Oakland Assemblyman Rob Bonta, a leading contender for the job who happened to be standing right behind Newsome L. A congressman Adam Schiff and Sacramento Mayor Gerald Steinberg are also said to be a Newsome short list. I'm very close to making that decision, but the decision will wait until this area is confirmed by the U. S. Senate. No hearing is scheduled yet to take up his nomination. Newsome's potential replacement for Bezerra would need to be confirmed by the state Legislature. I'm guy Marzo Roddy KQED news and there's more at kqed dot organ in Oakland. I'm Brian. What Did you know for a while this past year, Every KQED news reporter was a virus reporter. We restructured our newsroom and realigned or new staff to meet the challenges of covering the pandemic, and we integrated our news and science teams to broaden and deepen our coverage. All thanks to your continued support of KQED Public radio today at 1 809 378850. You can also pledge online a kqed dot org's slash donate support KQED news your newscasts with Host Brian what you heard from Guy Maserati. We have international coverage. National coverage from NPR all across the state with Lily Jamali, of course on the California report all on the air. Thanks to you, And right now it's a $2000. Dollar for Dollar Challenge Grant a partnership between the Charles M. Schulz Museum in Santa Rosa and Qi Q..
Bloomberg Radio New York
"stanford law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Law with Joon Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. DC Federal appellate court has ruled that request for information by congressional oversight panel's don't require the approval of the majority members. The 2 to 1 decision overturned a district court opinion for the Trump administration. In the lawsuit before Democrats took control over the House, seven Democratic members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. We're trying to gather details of the terms under which the General Services Administration came to lease the old post office building to President Trump for what later became the Trump International Hotel in D. C. The administration refused to provide the requested information so the Democrats went to court. The appellate court's decision affirms the right of minorities on the oversight committees, at least seven members on the House committee and five in the Senate to request information from federal agencies and to get the courts to step in if the agencies refused to comply with the request for information. That's distinct from the subpoena Power of congressional committees, which requires a majority of the committee. I've been talking to David Slansky professor at Stanford Law School. So David, the appeals court decided that the minority members did have standing to sue and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. What could happen now? The Court of Appeals said that the trial court and consider in argument that the Trump Administration raised that it would be inappropriate for courts to get involved in this question altogether. That trial for can also consider an argument that the Trump Administration raised that this statute doesn't give right to members of Congress that they can pursue in court. Hand the trial court considering argument that Trump Administration raised that the kind of information that these members were requesting is not the kind of information that the statute authorizes them to request. So the Trump mistress could still win in court when this goes back to the trial court, assuming that the administration continues to pass Bill Austin. So the Court of Appeals didn't say that the plaintiff is automatically win. It just said they don't lose on standing grounds now, as a practical matter. The administration's about change hands. Of India, new director of the General Services Administration and the new president, and it's highly unlikely that the new administration is going to continue to resist. Giving this information to Congress. The student's likely to become moved. One of the new administration takes over. What? What will be on the book so Is the decision by the Court of Appeals that a minority group of minority numbers of either of the Congressional Oversight Committee in the Senate Oversight Committee or the House Oversight Committee. I can sue. In court. New fourth the investigation to comply with requests that are made pursuant to this federal statutes section 29 54 type of five Does this ruling fit in with the way the Supreme Court has ruled in cases recently involving Congress suing Well, that's what the Court of appeals disagreed about that so the as his normal when a federal court of Appeals side the case, the case is decided by a three judge panel, three of the judges on that You know, it's Court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. And there, those judges blend You don't want Two of the judges thought that you request That these members of Congress were making and the lawsuit that they filed Within the decisions of it. Nice Supreme Court has made about when Congress is allowed to and when congressional committees are latitude because the United States imported made it clear That the House of Representatives can, too. Do you, uh, get traditional enforcement? Uh, it's right under the law and congressional committees in suits. Do in fourth. Their subpoena. On the other hand, individual members of Congress Yeah. Who? Complaining that the committee or uh or the husband representatives, the whole or the Senate of the hole was unfairly treated and I didn't get what they're entitled to under the law. So the question in this case is is a group of five. Members of the Senate Committee or seven members of the House committee. Is that, um, like, uh, when those people do Is that like an individual member of Congress doing saying, I think Congress has been injured, or is it like Uh, individual members of Congress doing when they impact themselves have been injured, so there was disagreement among three judges and two of them said That the Supreme Court earlier decisions suggests that these members of Congress have standing and one member of the court thought otherwise. He said that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court properly interpreted Suggest that these members don't have standing Congressional subpoenas seemed to be not worth the paper. They're written on recently, at least in the last four years because it doesn't seem like there's any enforcement power. They have to go into the courts, and then it takes forever. And as we've seen in many cases, the Trump administration is coming to an end before some of these cases are coming to an end. So is this a better way like for this one? Oversight Committee to get information and easier way than through subpoena. Well, it leaves your in the event that the party that is in the minority. Uh, request this information without getting the committee of the whole to prove it. But once the request is made, if your ministrations fails to comply, you have the same problem that you have with subpoena that enforcing our right information in federal court can take a long time. On by the administration can run down the clock. That's exactly what happened here. This decision is coming at the very end of the Trump administration. Now, I wouldn't say that That means that it's useless. It happened that Trump lost the election, and he's on his way out. But if he had won the election, he would have been in office for another four years, and it would have been meaningful that the court has said that there was a right to information. Still, it's unclear How quickly they would've gotten the information even with this ruling, because, as I mentioned, the ruling just says that that the standing doctrine doesn't block this suit. Administration still had other arguments for why the lawsuit should be allowed and why they should be required to turn over the information. And it could well be that litigating those additional issues would have taken another four years. Thanks so much for being on the show. That's David SCA landscape professor at Stanford Law School. Coming up next on the Bloomberg long Show, We'll.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"stanford law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"DC Federal appellate court has ruled that requests for information by congressional oversight panel's do not require the approval of the majority members. The decision overturned a district court opinion for the Trump administration. It could smooth the way for Republicans and the Democratic Majority House to pursue investigations that might be politically damaging to the administration of President elect Joe Biden. Likewise, if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate, it could smooth the way for Democrats there to pursue investigations that might be politically damaging to Republican interests. Joining me is David Slansky Ah, professor at Stanford Law School start by explaining what the lawsuit was all about. That's the lawsuit filed by Democratic members of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. They sued the General Services Administration. Or failing to give them information that they had requested about the lease of the Or post office building and the District of Columbia to Donald Trump and something So now this is under the seven member rules, not about a subpoena. That's correct. There's a federal statute. That says that a certain number of members of either the Senate over effect maybe or the House oversight Committee it's five members of the Senate committee or seven members of the House committee. And request information. On any matter within the purview of the committee. UM, executive branch and the executive branch has to supply it. That's without a subpoena. The lawsuit was brought by seven Democratic members of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, and they requested information pursuing this federal statutes. And the administration refused to provide it, so they went to court. So tell us what happened at the trial court level. But prior for the federal District Court and the disc of Colombia Ruled again the plaintiff because the trial court said that they lack the ending. And standing as a technical legal doctrine. That says that federal court Yes, The five questions the ABS craft. They come on. Lee decide questions They can only take on a case when there's something concrete at stake. And it has to be a fake between the people who are bringing the case and the people who are being sued. So I can't do, for example, because I think that my son was unfairly taken advantage of, or He did out of nothing. And you also can't do even if some organization that you're a part of Have been wrong, so I'm a professor at Stanford. But I can't sue because I think Stanford University has a right that was infringed on somehow, or Stanford University was unfairly damaged. And that's true for members of Congress, too. Members of Congress generally are not allowed to do. Because they think that Congress is not being treated well, but they can sue if they individually have been injured in some way that the court has the power to address So, the district court said that these members of Congress lacked standing to complain about a violation of this. Ask you because the statute didn't really protect them that protected Congress. So the House of Representatives could sue, but these individual members couldn't do. That's what the trial footsteps Okay, so tell us now what the appellate court said. Your power court that it's not true that these individual members of Congress weren't hurt. They were hurt. This is a statute that Give a right New group of congressional representatives to request information from the executive branch even when they're in the minority, So it's unusual facet in that way. And there is something real estate here. The court of Appeals between these individual members and the administration. These individual members say we have a right to this information under the statute and the executive and set We're not giving it to you. So the Court of Appeal said. These members do have standing to pursue this lawsuit. Now. That doesn't mean that they're gonna win. It doesn't mean that they have a right to the information. It doesn't even mean that the court ultimately should decide whether they have a right to the information. Because the Court of Appeal said that the trial court can consider in argument that the Trump administration raised That it would be inappropriate for courts to get involved in this question altogether. The trial for can also consider an argument that the Trump Administration raised that this statute doesn't give right to members of Congress that they can pursue in court. Hand the trial court. You consider an argument that Trump administration raised that the kind of information that these members were requesting is not the kind of information that the statute authorizes them to request. So the Trump message could still win in court when this goes back to the trial court, assuming that the administration continues to pass The lawsuit coming up next we'll talk about what may happen when this case goes back to the trial court. You're listening to Bloomberg. You've probably heard 15 minutes could save you 15% or more. Is that Shakespeare? No. It's Geico. Kanye. Yeah, that Shakespeare from one of his unpublished works, which be not for awakening. Today. Give us that the Berries for 15 minutes could save you 15% or more. No, it's from Geico because they helped save people money. Well, I hate to break it to you, but I still got it from Shakespeare. Geico 15.
KMJ NOW Programming
Pennsylvania secretary of state predicts it'll be a 'matter of days' for all ballots to be counted
"Key to the vote count on Tuesday night will be how the votes are counted. What kind of challenges will be raised? Where will we see Lawsuits over win battles, Ballots arrive postmark, the segregation of ballots matching signatures terms like provisional and naked ballots. You better get your glossary out. And most ominous. Will there be violence? We have two guests who will be dealing with the vote town. Kathy Book Bar is Pennsylvania secretary of State and Stanford Law professor and Elections expert in NBC News Legal analyst named personally Also joining us. I'm gonna begin though in Pennsylvania with the secretary of state there, Kathy Book for Madam Secretary State. Thank you for doing this and let me start with what has us a lot of us anxious here, and that is The timing of the vote count, particularly when the non Election day vote starts starts to get counted. We already know a CZ. Many of seven counties won't even begin town ING mail in ballots until Wednesday morning. Explain to viewers how much patients we all need Tohave about Pennsylvania? Thank you for having me on Chuck really appreciated it. Now let me start out by setting really 0.4 Million pets of Indians have already cast their ballot I mail This is going to be 10 times as many as the last time we had a presidential election. Pennsylvania Yes, it will take longer. But having said, But I want to be clear that Elections have never been called election night. Our military and overshoot means ballots. You know any women who are serving our country more open after election dated Esther Palace, so I just want to set that straight. That this is a process of me one of them from that every single vote. Every valid voter fairly and accurately. So to your question, I expected over Longbridge Merete of balance and living with his mail in absentee ballots as well as in person balance, But we can't do within a matter of eight with counties are staffing up. Have a ton of it. Quit, Nick. Best practices in planes that are planning for the most part to count 24 7 until its land and who knows all the public servants who are going to make sure it gets done as quickly as possible. All right. You did
Weekend Edition Saturday
Trump To Select Amy Coney Barrett as Supreme Court Nominee
"This edition from NPR News. I'm Scott's time and we are expecting President Trump to announce Amy Cockney Barrett as his nominated. He was Supreme Court this afternoon. Judge Barrett sits on the seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Ah, in in Chicago, although she's in Indiana and served his clerk to just Saturnian, Scalia. She, of course, would fill the vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose life and career were honored at the court in the capital this week, and you will be buried next week at Arlington National Cemetery. Let's now welcome Michael McConnell of Stanford University law professor and former federal appeals court judge. Thanks very much for being with us, sir. It's a pleasure. I gather, you know, Amy Cockney Barrett. What's your estimation on her apparent nomination? What kind of justice you might be? Well, I do. Ah. She was a professor at Notre Dame Law School for about 15 years and then Now that capacity I knew her fairly well, she is. We're not personal friends, but I'm in admirers of both her academic work and her performance on the On the seventh circuit. Uh, she's I think a completely unsurprising nominee. Even her opponents recognized that she's extremely qualified, highly and intelligent, hardworking. What are personal Friends knows what in it. Fantastically warm, kind, considerate human being she is and she's I think she'll be an inspiration, especially toe working mothers like like my two daughters, because, and it's just seven Children, including Two adopted Children from Haiti. One right in the wake of the terrible earthquake and on almost everybody who knows of Amy has a story about just how and how she She is so kind and does just considerate things in ways that no one whatever I know about not publicly, but just on a cz, a wonderful warm human being. Let me ask you about some of the public stuff, though, because you're a former U. S appeals court judge and, um I wonder if you've taken note of any particular rulings that she's had the chance to make in her time on the bench. And not quite three years as an appellate judge. He's written 100 opinions, which Dad and itself is pretty impressive. That's Andi. They are. You know, I've not read all of them, but I've read quite a few of them and they're consistently Love of a kind of restrained, very lawyerly of fashion sheep. She clerked for Justice Scalia, who was a brilliant writer, she doesn't write like Scalia. I'm You know, for better or worse. Her opinions are not very rhetorical. There. Ah, rigorous. They are much more low key. Er than that on DH. You know her, and they're just they're consistently conservative, but mainstream conservative. I don't think There's not an extremist bone in her body does does she have opinions? That might surprise some of her supporters every now and then? Ah, every now and then. Ah! Of course, no one really knows where any judge is going to come out on every and maybe we should remind ourselves calling someone a conservative jurist doesn't mean they will always vote a certain way, right? That's right. And the modern legal conservative movement is little different from conservative politics because the conservative legal movement is really mostly about having a more restrained Roll for judges that they ought to read the Constitution modestly with humility, not reading their own preferences into it, And that generally means leaving legislatures and the Congress to make most Democratic choices rather than having the court be like a super Legislature. Stanford law Professor Michael McConnell. Thanks so much for being with us, sir. Thank you.
People of the Pod
Remembering Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"Epic luck is a professor of law and the Founding Faculty Director of the Solomon Center for Health, Law and policy at Yale Law school she is an expert on Congress and the political process federalism civil procedure and health law among her most recent work is the most extensive empirical study ever conducted about the realities of the congressional lawmaking process published as two articles. In the Stanford Law review she has worked for. A Mayor Governor and senator, but she's here today because she also worked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg she and fellow former clerk Jillian. Metzger wrote a piece in the new. York. Times just days after Justice GINSBURG staff recalling her impact on them and on equality for men and women in America professor. Thank you for joining us and before we begin our deepest condolences to the loss of your mentor and friend. Thank you so much. It's really a loss for all of us. Yes. Well, I believe you were at the all night vigil last night for Justice Ginsburg I'm hoping you can kind of take us there and describe that experience. Sure. So many people saw on television yesterday the law clerk stood outside to receive the justices casket, which is a typical tradition, but was very striking. I think yesterday because we covered the plaza, an perse because there are so many of us. But second because you were social distancing for covid. So created quite a striking visual I'd ask her ceremony. There is a tradition that other justices have observed where there's an honor guard that guards the casket for the entire time at lays in the court and law clerks at the sign of honor to their boss. Often stand is shifts next to the casket what we did yesterday and are still doing until tomorrow morning actually for the full forty, eight hours, the casket is. The court is that we have two law clerks that are standing by her side every single minute from the time she got to the court through the night. So I was there last night at midnight that another shift at one forty in the morning it's not unique as you know in the Jewish tradition, there is that tradition of standing by the side of the body for burial and several people have asked me wells is happening because she's a Jewish justice. This part of the Jewish tradition at it's a happy coincidence. It's not just for her as happened before, but I was very meaningful I think and really special way to honor her well. Let's talk about just the Ginsberg's impact on you. What did you learn as her clerk started in July two thousand three, right? Yes. Can you talk about your time as for Clark but also impact on you going forward from that time I mean I think her impact on anyone Shane. Countered is really immeasurable as a law clerk for her her work ethic is renowned. She worked harder than anyone I just did another interview with someone else who's I? Well, very supreme court advocate who mentioned that you know nobody prepared more than Justice Ginsburg even the lawyers who are preparing their cases or less prepared than she was on as her law clerk, you could not out prepare her so was she taught us aw was this work ethic and the idea of Being incredibly careful. So you can stand behind your work, one, hundred percent she instilled that in us an enormous way, the other things that she instilled with us during the clerkship or some of her signature qualities. So she was remarkably collegial in the sense that she could disagree and dissent without throwing sharp elbows or causing fights and remaining friendly and close with her colleague. She's obviously the independent thinker. She also had just an amazing life outside the court she basically filled her. Entire. Day She would work until eight pm she would go to the opera than she will come back and work more and she sort of showed you how to have this incredibly full life where you could work hard and you know she wouldn't use your play hard but you know fill your life with all the things you love and every aspect and the last thing say about my time there that her relationship with her husband was as I said before one. For the ages and you could not work for her without seeing that relationship would have birthday parties for every law clerk in her office at her husband. Marty would big cake they were such equal partners. He was her biggest booster her stories through the ages were all about how they supported one another different times in their career. It was really an amazing experience for young person. I was newly married at the time to see that kind of marriage and learn from it. So did she maintain a relationship with her clerks after their terms the court we're up? Oh, absolutely. It was sort of remarkable and a Guy John Stronger and deeper and deeper. Every year I would say that with every passing year I felt closer and closer and closer to her, which is just
The Takeaway
Public Health Officials Are Increasingly Facing Threats
"Threats for me and my family and harassing my daughters to the point where I have to get security is just I mean, it's amazing I wouldn't have imagined in my wildest dreams. That people who object to things that are pure public health principles are so set against it and don't like what you and I say it, namely in the word of science. That they actually threaten you. That's Dr Anthony Fauci, the nation's leading expert on infectious diseases, speaking to CNN's Sanjay Gupta, about threats he and his family have received because of his work. And Dr Fauci is not alone. Public health officials across the US are also receiving threats from people who are against the policies they put forth to combat the corona virus. Things like recommendations to wear masks and practice social distancing. Michelle Mellow is a professor of law and a professor of medicine at Stanford, and she's been researching this exact topic. Michelle, Welcome to the show. Happy to be here. Shall you wrote an article about the attacks on public health officials during covert 19. What was it that prompted you to even look into this? Well, it happens that one of my bosses that Stanford is married to our Santa Clara County local health officer here in the Bay Area, So I do have a personal connection to somebody who's experienced these kind of attacks. Tell us a little bit about what kinds of attacks were talking about. All across the country. We've really seen a number of things that made your audience seem pretty shocking and are unusual even in the American context we have seen, you know the usual Internet trawling, but the attacks have taken on a highly personal and almost violent dimension. Across the country. We've seen health officer subject to dock, saying the exposure of their personal information like their addresses or loved ones, names on the Internet. Angry and sometimes armed protestors showing up at their private residences, vandalism of their offices and homes, lots of harassing telephone calls and even death threats to the point of having to have private security details assigned to their families. Michelle, one of the things that prompted me. I'd saw the research here and then saw that Dr Anthony Fauci has needed to get his own extra private security because I believed his family had been threatened. Are we primarily talking about high profile figures like that, Or are we talking about? Anyone who's sort of on the front lines dealing with Corona virus cases. In particular, we're talking about people who ordinarily are about his low profile. As you can get local public health is thean visible angel that keeps us all healthy. But most of us until this pandemic you never heard of or seen our local health officer. They have been in the news lately on television and newspaper a lot, so they're no longer such private figures. But these are not high profile figures. They're not national figures. In most cases, they're not. They don't have a political agenda. There are doctors trying to do their jobs. Who are making these threats. Well, it comes from a variety of quarters. Ah, leader in Catalyst in this movement has been the anti vaccination movement here in the U. S. That has all of a sudden pivoted from their usual agenda of attacking public figures who advocate vaccination to going after health officers who are advocating masking and the extension of state home or business closure orders, But it's not on ly these groups. They've been joined by thousands of people across the country who are just really disgruntled and incredibly stressed. By the long term economic impact and social isolation that has stemmed from public health orders during the pandemic. Medical professionals are take a Hippocratic oath to serve whoever it is that needs their help. So like this, this feels like doctors and nurses didn't necessarily sign up to be. In such a political battle, You know, it's interesting the politicization of first responders because those on the front lines were actually caring for covert patients have been politicized as heroes in this pandemic. But the same groups of individuals, doctors and nurses who are working in the public health sector have been demonised as villains. They're all working toward the same goals, and we need to understand that, although they execute their objectives in different ways, they're all working towards a single and so are we. So it's really striking to me that there's been this polarization and how folks have viewed First responders and public health doctor's Michelle. Stick with us. We'll be back in a moment. This is the take away. On the next. All of it, looking for a job thinking about switching to a new one will discuss how to navigate the remote workforce in our series, the future of work, and we meet the director of the new documentary Boy State, which goes inside the weeklong mock government exercise that gathers more than 1000 high schoolers to create their own state government. I'm Alison Stewart. Join me for all of it weekdays at noon. We're back and you're listening to the takeaway. I'm tansy. No Vega. Michelle Mellow is on the line with me. She's a professor of law and a professor of medicine at Stanford, and we're talking about recent threats against public health officials all around the country. Michelle. Have we heard anything from the Trump Administration or other politicians at any level of government about this? Because recently in New Jersey, there was a federal judge whose family was attacked. Now there are talks of increasing protections for federal judges. And I'm wondering if this is now transferring over to medical professionals and health professionals. Well, yet we have to distinguish between medical professionals who are on the frontline response like the ones who are working in hospitals and the ones I'm talking about. Are those were working in public health departments. I'm not aware of specific problems involving the folks who are working in hospitals other than nobody wants to stand next to them at the grocery store. But the public health officials really have had to have protection stepped up. Unfortunately, most of our elected officials to the extent that they're speaking to this issue at all have been joining in the attacks. You know, there are folks who are making their name for themselves politically. By joining in the chorus of attacks against public health officials. In some cases, their own public health officers, you know, saying things like their anti Democratic their tyrannical when in reality, those same health officers are the only people in that state who can issue these orders. They're executing. Planning done by other elected officials, who then sort of hide behind this rhetoric, So it really is, in my view, despicable that instead of offering support to these hardworking, underpaid under attack health officers State and local officials. And in some cases, congressmen and the president have joined in the attacks, and the president himself has been the foam enter and chief here Retweeting such statements as everyone is lying. The CDC media Democrats are doctors, everyone we're told to trust That kind of statement fans the flames. Michelle did your research show whether or not there was a difference in health officers who are in red states versus blue states or our folks that work in these positions across the board, subject to this type of harassment. You know, we really have seen it in all kinds of communities. Certainly there is a red and blue divide in willingness to accept public health measures like masking and to the extent that you're leading a community that's more red than blue. You might have a larger segment of the population going after you. But some of the people who have been under attack are in heavily blue communities were actually most of the population really supports what they're doing. Polling is very much in their favor. But there is a vocal extreme of vocal minority that is dominating attention. Is there anything that public health officials Khun do to protect themselves? You know, to protect themselves. Many of them do need security details, and they need elected officials to stand up and indicate that when these actions crossed the line into illegal forms of harassment, they'll be subject to prosecution in terms of self defense strategies. You know, I think it may be late in the game for this, but there are some things that I think We know help to cultivate public trust and buy in to coerce of public health legal measures. Polling shows us that when people feel that they have a say in public health policy agendas when quote unquote people like me can influence agendas in public health policy, they're more likely to accept laws, even the ones that they don't love. So I think there are opportunities for some health officers to double down on the transparency and candor in their public communications. We do have examples of where this has been done Extraordinary. Well. I think it helps to humanize health officers to telegraph that they're really struggling with these decisions. They don't take them lightly, and also that they have the support of consultation of a number of other people. Well, they're not acting alone and imposing these orders. Do you know of any health officers who have decided to leave? Ah, the job as a result of this because it doesn't feel like you know, the virus is not going away. Assume as many of us would have liked, and people are going to have to make policies and an implement policies until we've got some clarity on where what the next phase of this is so have folks that you know, decided to leave their jobs as a result. Absolutely. I think the count is up near 30. Now, health officers who have either resigned or been forced out by their elected officials since the start of the disease pandemic because of the politicization of their orders. And that includes Oxiris Barbeau, who was the New York City health commissioner. It includes Nicole Quick, the health commissioner of Orange County are most affected County in California. In terms of covert cases it includes West Virginia health officer for the state had the slam so lots of folks who are dealing very, very difficult situation simply, it's just not reasonable to expect them to go on month after month. In this kind of climate, especially when they're not getting any support from other officials mentioned Oxygen's Barbeau and I know that was a big issue here in New York, particularly because she clashed with Mayor Bill de Blasio. Are we seeing a lot of that? A CZ? Well, just internally among Officers and public health officials, and also just, you know, the other officials that they're dealing with. It feels like I don't know if that was very specific to New York City politics or if that's also happening across the board. I think that is happening in a lot of communities. Yes, where you have a schism between elected branches of government that represent communities that have a particular ideological bent and help officers who have been serving you know for many, many administrations many many years and you are You're acting on the science a TTE this point of the pandemic. People are fed up with the science. They want a balance of between health concerns and economic and other concerns. And again. Some health officers have been very good at explaining how public health orders balanced. Those concerns and others who are maybe less transparent, really have been confronted by a lot of attacks from Ah, elsewhere in government. But, you know, responding to local political pressures themselves you mentioned earlier. We we are having to differentiate between threatening health officers and health officials and making and threatening frontline workers like doctors and nurses. But Our doctors and nurses subject to any type of politicization and threats right now, because of the role that they what they could possibly represent, or have they gotten off Have they sort of not been in the cross hairs? If you will. You know, I'm not aware of those kinds of attacks. I think it's more just that What we hear from them is the difficulty that they have in their personal lives Because people know they work with sick people. They don't want to be around him. They don't want to be around their kids. So it's the usual story in any pandemic, where You're the child of somebody who's working with an affected patient. Nobody wants their kid in school with you. I think that causes some difficulties for them, but it's a different quality and caliber of attack than what we've been talking about with public health officers. Michelle Mellow is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and a professor of medicine at Stanford University. School of Medicine. Michelle. Thanks so much, Thank you.
WTOP 24 Hour News
New campus sex assault rules bolster rights of the accused
"Stone education secretary Betsy to Voss has said those accused of campus related sex crimes should have more rights and now they will under a new tighter rules for how schools and universities should respond Stanford law professor Michele dauber says they may work for the accused but not for alleged victim they will make victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault are less likely to
Morning Edition
The Supreme Court begins hearing its first arguments by telephone, with the first live audio in its history
"The U. S. Supreme Court will begin an extraordinary two weeks of oral arguments today for the first time in history the court will actually live stream it's audio arguments will be heard on the telephone rather than in person here's NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg the justices are trying to simulate their normal arguments as much as possible beginning with chief Marshall Pamela tell can calling the court to order with a modified version of her usual pry O. yea O. yea O. yea all persons having business before the honorable the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw near and give their attention to the court is now sitting god save the United States and this honorable court because the justices and the lawyers cannot see one another we'll try to imagine where they're sitting or standing in their homes to hear or to present arguments the arguments are limited to a half hour on each side the lawyers we sampled to a person said they're more comfortable standing or even standing at a lectern as they usually do even though nobody can see them each side as usual we get to make an opening argument for two minutes uninterrupted under normal circumstances after that the justices engage in a rapid fire questioning of the lawyers interrupting council frequently and even on occasion each other but today the justices will question in order of seniority with the Chief Justice starting off then justice Clarence Thomas if he has any questions which she rarely does them justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at cetera court sources say each justice has been allotted two or three minutes for questioning with more questions permitted if there's time left at the end of the first round lawyers say there will be big challenges when you lose the ability to read body language I think that's number one lawyer J. secular will be representing president trump next week in a case testing whether the president can block a state grand jury subpoena for his presidential financial records in a criminal case as secular observers it's pretty intimate event when you're actually arguing in the court room you see them you can see their reaction to see if a nod to each other here you're doing this literally over a telephone line so you lose the intimacy I think Stanford law professor Jeff Fisher who will be arguing a religion case a week from today agrees I just feel like not being able to see their faces and body language is going to be a real challenge it is a cost for how effective and useful the arguments are going to be two days only case presents a trademark question not exactly the kind of thing to rivet public attention clearly the court is using this relatively an important argument to see how the system is working whether it needs to be adjusted in anyway in short the court scheduled this one first to work out the
The Strategerist
Leadership During Difficult Times
"Guest on this episode of the strategic is Keith Hennessy. These days he teaches at the Stanford Graduate School of Business Stanford Law School and his leadership fellow at the Bush Institute where he's teaching our leadership program sessions during the Bush administration. Though Keith was the assistant to the president for economic policy was the director of the National Economic Council during the financial crisis in two thousand seven and two thousand eight so those days Keith was working around the clock to blunt the impact of that financial crisis on on our economy. So we thought it'd be interesting today to hear about that experience while we're reacting to the cove in nineteen pandemic. That's happening right now. Keith thank you so much for taking time while your social distancing to call in happy to help hello from Palo Alto California. Well first off. Can you paint a picture of what it's like to be a decision maker in government during a time like this because I know right now? I'm watching the news. And there's just a constant stream of information things are changing by the minute and some of it is is fact some of it is conjecture. Some of it is somewhere in between. What's that stream of information like inside the White House and in our government? Yeah well an advantage. You have when you're working in the White House is that you get you. Get the best information that's out there. I always joke that one of the wonderful privileges. You can pick up the phone call pretty much anyone in the world and say. I need to help the president understand about your area of expertise. Can you spend some time with me? The person will always say yes. And then you have. You have a tremendous Roster of experts working in the government and then also outside of government Who can help feed you information? So the information tends to find you and if it doesn't you've you've got a team of talented people who can go find out The best available answer to any question. That's out there but there definitely is sort of a fog of war we're You think you know what's going on and you probably have a better picture than almost anyone else But there are a lot of unknowns. There are a lot of things that You know that you're just making educated guesses at so that's tough in hindsight This is one of the big mistakes. In terms of historic analysis is in hindsight. It is very easy to forget the things that now seem obvious. But we're not obvious time You know the biggest mistake about hindsight announces at the time. You didn't know what was going to happen next. And while you thought you knew what your actions and decisions might Might produce you're not always certain And then the other thing is is stressful And so you learn how individuals react to stressful environments and then you learn how teams React to stressful environments and you know I think it also depends on how long the crisis Lassen how long the pressure is applied. It's one thing to be in a stressful situation for days and weeks. It's a whole another thing to be in it for weeks and months and wears on people and In overtime that takes a toll because the people who are making these decisions are after all humans right. That's actually kind of interesting. And and so how? How do you keep team functioning under these kind of in under this kind of situation? And where might we might be doing this for a long time? Yeah I'm not sure I have many tricks. We were in in one respect. We were fortunate in that the the financial crisis in two thousand eight hit in year eight. So of the Bush team We knew how to operate as a team. We knew how the mechanisms of governments worked on a lot of US had four or five or six or seven years under our belts working for this president working with each other So we had those advantages of experience and know each other and frankly had a really good team In that last year With with Hank Paulson sort of as the the field. General for the president with Ben Bernanke over at the Fed and Kevin Warsh And with a lot of amazing people internally and so that teen Kinda you know it means that you don't have to worry about those aspects of it. You can just focus on the crisis of hand. So we had a bunch of pros. We had a bunch of pros. Who knew how to work together. And then you know you just you kind of say look. There will be time to sleep and time to rest on the back end of this. We're just going to keep pushing basically because we have to. I think the other thing is the morale is really important and and Bush thing. We were really fortunate because the morale comes in large part from the president You know the morale and the tone I always say that the tone in the White House is eighty percent set by the president and twenty percent by the White House Chief of staff and we had a president and a chief of staff who were creating a tone and environment where the rest of us didn't have to worry about the politics We could basically just focus on. What was the? What was the best policy? And how do we try to make it happen? So then you mentioned the that you knew how the government works and the government with all of its departments and with experts who sometimes have competing priorities. So in general strokes. Can you talk about how to how these departments all work together and coordinate during a crisis like this? Well that's what the White House policy councils are for. At the time we had four of them there are now three In the White House of the National Security Council is the granddaddy of them all And the National Economic Council in the Domestic Policy Councils And I worked in a on the National Economic Council staff so these are people who work in the White House for the president and Their job is to coordinate policy making in their in their area for the All the information that comes in for the president goes through the Policy Council to sort of structure. It make sure the presence president knows what's going on and what that best information is and in particular because the president has got a lot of advisers each of whom is responsible for looking at a part of the problem and the Policy Council Stash. Job is to make sure that the president has the information that they need to look at the whole problem. And so when you run one of these Policy cancels you get very good at running meetings and conference calls to pull all the advisers together To to compare information to figure out what decisions the president to make and then to make sure that the president hears from all of you know his advisors that he needs to we. We would joke that. Our job was to set up clean fights cleaner where you'd have conflicting advice. The you know one team advisors would set a precedent you do X. And other advisers would say the president should do why you. WanNa make sure the president gets the information. He needs so that he can make that decision and then when he makes the decision that everybody throughout the executive branch actually executes. Does what the president wants to do right so you would actually present. Exxon wide both team ex ante y presented the president. Let him make that decision. Yeah and I shouldn't describe as really two teams that a mismatch speak mistaken. Are My these are. These are different advisors who were all part of the president skiing. But right right right just disagree on a particular question and You know these. These decisions are hard. None of the options are particularly good. Because you're always over constrained But there are just different. Trade offs different choices that the advisers would make. And what you WANNA do. Is You want to hear the president. Have the president here. Those arguments be able to push the advisers. And then say okay. Here's what we're going to do You know the privilege of working for the president. Is You get to be in the room to make the argument or the option that you think you should make. And then when he hasn't sides it you've got to go out there and execute even if he went with The other option one that you didn't recommend be interesting thing about the financial crisis is that there were a lot fewer disagreements about what to do among