We recently discussed how an American University professor called for the impeachment of President Donald Trump over his handling of the coronavirus outbreak. Not to be outdone, MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner is now declaring that Trump should be charged with negligent homicide over his conduct. While insisting that, as a former prosecutor, this is something he “actually know[s] too much about,” Kirschner proceeds to utterly misrepresent the controlling law and definitions of such a criminal case. While I come from the other perspective of a criminal defense attorney, the argument being put forward by the MSNBC legal analyst is devoid of any basis in the law. It does however play well for those who believe impeachment or prosecution are entirely fluid and relative concepts when it comes to Trump.
Kirchner has proven a reassuring legal analyst for MSNBC viewers in predicting Trump’s demise or, a year ago, predicting that Trump’s emergency order would quickly go down in flames. (Trump has largely if not entirely prevailed as some of us predicted).
Now, however, Kirschner is telling viewers that Trump can be charged with negligent homicide in a series of tweets:
“Hey All. Can we talk about 1 of the few topics I may actually know too much about: homicide? Specifically, whether Donald Trump may have criminal exposure for some level of negligent homicide or voluntary/involuntary manslaughter for the way he’s mishandled the Coronavirus crisis.”
He explained that his experience as a prosecutor gives him this confidence of a credible charge:
“I spent 22 of my 30 years as a federal prosecutor handling murder cases in Washington, DC. I served as Chief of the Homicide Section at the DC US Attorney’s Office, overseeing all murder prosecutions in the city. I was always on the lookout for novel ways to apply homicide . . .
I was always on the lookout for novel ways to apply homicide liability in an attempt to appropriately and ethically hold accountable those who were responsible for taking the life of a fellow human being. I think it’s fair to observe that there’s nothing more devastating to a family than losing a loved one to ether violent crime or to an illness that could have been prevented or mitigated/ I’m trying to assimilate all available evidence (rapidly developing and being reported every day) to fairly assess whether Trump and his administration may have acted/failed to act in a way that could give rise to homicide liability. This is not an easy question.”
It actually is “an easy question” because Kirschner’s theory is absolutely absurd. Not novel. Nonsense.
The courts have long recognized that discretionary actions by public officials is not the subject of civil, let alone criminal, liability. The Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for negligence with the express exception for discretionary functions. Such functions generally mean under cases like Berkovitz v. United States , 486 U.S. 531 (1988), that public officials are protected in making choices that are based on public policy or priorities. As the Supreme Court reaffirmed in United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 325 (1991). the federal law protects decisions that are based on policy choices and courts will not second guess such choices.
Seeking criminal charges is even more difficult with a higher burden of proof. Bad policies choices are not crimes. The government has killed millions of people through bad choices from lax environmental protections to health care choices to the failure to act upon various crises. Obviously, the federal government is unlikely to bring such a charge criminalizing federal decisionmaking. Moreover state prosecutions on such theories have failed. Take the case of FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, formerly part of an elite Hostage Rescue Team were deployed to Ruby Ridge for the infamous standoff with a family involving a weapons charge (and suspicion of involving in the shooting of a deputy marshal). In firing on armed individuals, Horiuchi shot and killed Vicki Weaver who was holding a child. The Justice Department declined prosecution because 18 U.S.C. 242 only covers the “willful” deprivation of federal constitutional or statutory rights by government actors. Horiuchi was wrong in firing the shot but he did not willfully use unreasonable force because he thought he was protecting fellow officers and firing at a fleeing armed felon.
When criminal charges were brought by state officials, they were promptly removed to federal court and then dismissed. The district court and then the federal appellate court ruled that the action was taken within the officer’s scope of authority and that he believed that the act was necessary and proper under the circumstances.
The Horiuchi case involved a far more narrow and concrete set of elements but still failed. To suggest that decisions are criminal made in the a sweeping pandemic (with the advice of a health care task force) is nonsensical.
Yet, Kirschner seems entirely unburdened by the law or controlling precedent in assuring the public that this is a real option. Notably, he again repeats the MSNBC mantra of a litany of crimes by Trump that were notably omitted from any of the articles of impeachment by the Democrats. Those claims were also made with the same degree of confidence despite the fact that they conflicted with controlling precedent:
“Further, whereas the evidence is clear that Trump has committed multiple criminal offenses both before his tenure as president (campaign finance crimes) & during his time as president (obstruction of justice, bribery/extortion) homicide liability by his negligent/grossly negligent (and/or possibly intentional) mishandling of the Coronavirus crisis in the US is a more nuanced and thorny issue and deserves careful consideration. But the homicide liability issue MUST be addressed because ALL criminal charges will have to be investigated and, if the evidence dictates it, prosecuted come Jan. 2021. Stay tuned.”
That is the point of course: to keep people to stay tuned. The failure of any of the past breathless criminal theories to actually materialize has not diminished the appetite, if not the need, for additional theories. It is not “nuanced.” It is nonsense. A case cannot be based on such a theory and, if this is an example of how Kirschner continually found “novel ways to apply homicide liability” as a prosecutor, it is a chilling prospect for anyone who values the rule of law.
A “novel” virus is not an invitation for novel criminal theories. If Kirschner is correct, every living president in our lifetime could have been charged with negligent homicide. MSNBC has become a font for such flights of legal fancies. It may be cathartic but comes at a price. It further seeks to bend our legal standards to meet the needs of this age of rage. Rather than inform viewers of the reality of the law, it seeks to fill an insatiable appetite for impeachment and prosecution fantasies. The result is a race to the bottom in legal analysis that is inimical to both the media and the law.
It’s become impossible not to publicly acknowledge the truth. Radical liberals and Leftists are literally the dumbest people on the planet at this point. They, with their mouthpiece Press, are also working to make the rest of the American people as dumb. I’m sorry the Democrats have bought into this, but we can’t stop ignoring the obvious.
OT:
Isn’t this precious.
Paula While:
Send your hard-earned money to help support me in the style to which I’ve become accustomed. And buy my book which is displayed behind me.
Alternatively one could vote for Biden whose family proves him corrupt or stupid, take your choice. He sold us down the drain with China and Ukraine along with other things.
Impeach! Impeach Kirshnder or however ya spull his name from any public job he ever gets.
Maybe the blog needs a Nitwit topic once s week.
Absent intent, a public official acting in good faith should be held harmless. We elect people to act on our behalf and to make decisions which by definition will cost lives. In this case Trump showed careless disregard but no intent. He’s not the 1st president to do that. Since the Senate ratified the idea that anything the president does to advance his own reelection is by definition legal, the fact that he sugar coated and avoided the coming crisis was all in the interests of that higher principle.
Case closed.
Anon, using your legal theories, that are as good as bent and rusty nails, the Democrats should be charged with attempted murder since they tried to interfere with Trump when he banned Chinese travellers. That was one of the best things that could have been done.
Seems from the cheap seats that depriving testing equipment that lives depend on would be fertile territory for a creative way to apply murder statutes. Could be it was just garden variety cluelessness…, but still worth putting under the microscope.
Also seems there may be a correlation with, say, a bar or a restaurant being charged when serving too much alcohol to someone who later committed vehicular homicide.
Such a massive policy f#$k up around lack of testing and equipment supply that had deadly consequence is worthy of being looked at criminally as far as I’m concerned. It’s not like the whole world doesn’t know the States aren’t the worst in the industrialized world at testing for Covid 19 and that the Trump administration was incapable in its early denial and lack of response.. .
Insert the mutant howls about restricting travel from China right here. Thing is, that was a minimal response that didn’t even stray from Trump’s other travel restriction reasons on other countries not based in reality in the least bit. The fall down on the medical end was staggering. Totally negligent.
Murder? Perhaps a bit too extreme. But certainly grounds to consider some form of criminal negligence. Not a bad idea for there to be a penalty for being so far out of touch with a medical situation spiraling so wildly out of control with a verifiable paper trail of boneheadedness involved.
Again, another Covid 19 related article that comes across more than a wee bit tone deaf, Professor.
“the States aren’t the worst in the industrialized world at testing for Covid 19”
As we speak people are running the numbers to compare what happened in different countries. It is difficult to draw conclusions but what has been calculated is the number of deaths compared to population among countries accounting for the time factor.
From one site “The data suggest that the U.S. is, so far, doing extraordinarily well” It has the lowest death rate in this set of calculations.
The easier way to first understand the numbers is below. Enclosed is an explanation and a referral to the article.Midway down is a bar graph that tells a story one has to consider.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/03/per-capita-death-rates-in-one-chart.php
I await your take on both reports.
First take, I laugh that you’ve taken my quote out of context. I also laugh that after I posted a statistics crunch MUCH more detailed than this, you dismissed it by saying it as being put together by someone who “doesn’t understand” science.
Having said that, assessing U.S. testing failure, (which is being madly increased this week) by looking at deaths per capita is an abstraction. Covid 19 adversely affects older people and compromised people far more than the young. The young will prove to be outstanding carriers in the long run. And it’s also my guess, once antibody testing becomes available that Covid 19 has been here much longer than suspected. But to the point of the stats you’ve attached, they point entirely toward care for the elderly than they do to efficacy of testing. In fact, deaths per capita have almost no relation to testing without several substantive leaps in logic. And even now, the vast majority of deaths in the States occur in the elderly in care facilities..
In keeping with what establishes testing efficacy I value the stats of # of tests per million in population and weighing that in comparison with other nations of massive outbreak (i.e. Italy, China, South Korea and Iran) and also the stats/guidelines how easily available a test is. It’s here that U.S testing response is more accurately affected.
The most current comparison for the U.S. would be with Italy since we’re most mirroring their outbreak curve and we’ll be overtaking them this week in terms of case numbers. That of course having to be balanced against the population differences between the nations to get a full picture.
While nice to know deaths per capita, it’s only tangentially related to U.S. fall down in testing response. To be more effective, the per capita death response has to be crunched with the outlying death stats of Italy (which are comparatively speculated on in the stat crunch I attached to you awhile back).
Also, the article you attached closed on a political not saying Democrats ‘have to be careful’ in blaming Trump for his testing ineptitude, showing its political bias and what informs the rationale of its death per capita deflection on the testing question.
,
Again, the far more accurate and encompassing stats around Covid 19. Maybe read them this time?
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca
Why should I read your secondary or tertiary sources when the stats and material are elsewhere which I read. If there is something important that you think I am missing tell me what it is and where in the article it exists. I don’t find a lot of your sources reliable.
You should read them because they crunch the numbers from several angles to come to a balanced conclusion, allowing for outliers while synthesizing what can be taken from a large amount of information.
I’ve noticed you have a weakness when assessing scientific information, allowing a political bias to shade your conclusions…
it all comes down to dialectics… thesis + antithesis = synthesis.
In this instance, you enter the discussion with a conclusion (synthesis) taken directly from your thesis, but provide no antithesis…
It goes like this: you enter with what looks to be a one shot study that doesn’t relate to the subject. Example: deaths per capita as a way to determine whether testing was/is successful or not. This is at best a tangential thesis. Really more in the territory of an abstraction because that particular result refers to factors that kick in after diagnosis and doesn’t touch on the factors leading to diagnosis. I. e. testing.
Not that deaths per capita are entirely unrelated, there is just not a direct correlation. It needs an anti thesis at minimum to prove it’s relation to the front end diagnosis.
I noticed awhile back when you vociferously posted a study about women getting depressed after having an abortion. Since having an abortion is not a stellar experience, of course depression can likely follow. People don’t really feel awesome after having one. It’s like saying wow, when a day is really warm it’s likely the sun was out….
What you needed to crunch to get an accurate argument was how post abortion depression compared to postpartum depression. Or how it compared to what women experienced who wanted to have an abortion but couldn’t and were forced to then surrender a child into the adoption system….
Those were your minimally required antithesis’ around the subject. And this is indeed the foundation of good science.
Glad you asked the question. And glad to help.
“You should read them because they crunch the numbers from several angles ”
Anon, the same graphs and discussion as seen elsewhere. You haven’t bothered to point me to something that I haven’t read and a lot of other folk on this blog haven’t read elsewhere. You have to use predigeted sources.
“It goes like this: you enter with what looks to be a one shot study that doesn’t relate to the subject. Example: deaths per capita as a way to determine whether testing was/is successful or not.”
You are lying again. Both the article and I stated the graph was an angle that didn’t adjust for a lot of things and in response to you twice I told you I was adding data points to broaden the discussion away from your politicizing what has happened showing how many different angles need to be looked at. Even the article showed angles the numbers didn’t look at. It’s amazing how you can’t read the written word or you intentionally lie. That has been your history.
Oh my. You said you hadn’t read the crunch I posted.
Suggestion: bi polar meds.
Anyone on the blog can reread what we all say. Take note how that happened with Jan F. He and I got into a dispute that went back and forth. He called me a liar and I quoted the exact conversation proving he lied. Some others did similar things. Not that much time passed and Jan F. disappeared only to reappear as Anon among a whole bunch of other personalities some gone and some still present. Unfortunately Jan F. never learned from the start and it doesn’t seem he ever will.
“He and I got into a dispute that went back and forth. He called me a liar and I quoted the exact conversation proving he lied.”
Why don’t you point us to that exchange.
That is something you will have to find yourself. Find the posts where Jan F. exists and do some reading
And this has what to do with what exactly?
The words and the incident is quite clear.
Allan wrote: “That is something you will have to find yourself. Find the posts where Jan F. exists and do some reading”
You made the claim and should be willing & able to back it up with a link.
Why? You are the one that wants to know and to find the conversations involves a lot of work.
Actually I was wondering what Allan said that had to do with anything. I think he may be freaking out. He’s tracking really strangely.
“I noticed awhile back when you vociferously posted a study about women getting depressed after having an abortion. Since having an abortion is not a stellar experience, of course depression can likely follow. People don’t really feel awesome after having one. It’s like saying wow, when a day is really warm it’s likely the sun was out….”
Anon, I brought that into discussion because either you or one of your alternate personalities stated no such article existed. I provided an article to prove that such articles did exist.
Some people keep on trucking while you keep on lying.
Honest concern: the timing isn’t exactly perfect, but there options on line given the Covid 19 we’re in, but…
I highly encourage seeking therapy, Allan. I’m serious.
Your lies come back to haunt you so you try to shift the subject.
You all cray, bud.
“First take, I laugh that you’ve taken my quote out of context.”
Anon, what did I take out of context? Nothing. I merely added data bits to the data contained in what you said. Then I asked for your interpretation. I didn’t even draw any conclusions but I wanted a broader thinking process to be used and I even asked for your opinion.
Some of what you are saying in your response was written in the article. My asking for your opinion wasn’t a trick question rather I was trying to demonstrate how many different ways one could look at the present situation. You keep drawing conclusions from the data that might support your position (sometimes errantly your data doesn’t support your position) while at the same time omitting data that supports a different conclusion.
I am pointing out that there is a difference between looking at things and drawing conclusions as an emotional hothead and looking at things from all sides of the equation.
“The most current comparison for the U.S. would be with Italy since we’re most mirroring their outbreak curve and we’ll be overtaking them this week in terms of case numbers.”
But when looking at this problem we should also look at what counts, the death rate. Italy has a huge number of deaths and we might not even reach that number of Corona deaths at the end of this year.
Italy: Total deaths 2,978 New Deaths 475
U.S.: Total deaths 135 New Deaths 26
Your reading skills are very reactionary.
Read what I posted in regard to it’s take on Italy. Just read it. Or not. I don’t really GAF.
You demonstrate the same temper as bent nail Anon. I read what you said about Italy and what you said that was true was written in the article. You interpretation was plaigerized.
a) what temper does a bent nail have?
b) WTF are you talking about? I feel like you’re having a bit of a psychotic break to be honest.
In my opinion, the correct charge is murder. He now admits he knew the virus was deadly and he took not action to slow the Pandemic which he now claims he knew about all the time. He should be charged in every state in which deaths occurred as a result of COVID 19. The Constitution does not grant any immunity to the President. It’s time for his actions to have consequences for HIM!
“he took not action to slow the Pandemic which he now claims he knew about all the time”
Look at your history. Trump banned Chines travelers. What were the Democrats and MSM doing and saying at the time?
Congrats Mr. Kirschner. By promoting your own status as a former prosecutor to try to give credibility to your lunacy, you are helping destroy public confidence in federal prosecutors.
His prosecutorial record ought to be thoroughly scrutinized to see how many people he wrongly railroaded into pleading guilty based on his “novel” theories.
What a disgrace.
“His prosecutorial record ought to be thoroughly scrutinized to see how many people he wrongly railroaded into pleading guilty based on his “novel” theories.”
That is a very good point. One has to wonder if this prosecutor did his job fairly.
Confusing. Wasn’t Chinese President Xi Jinping responsible?
Xi thinks he can tell the U.S. to stop calling it the “Chinese Virus” or the “Wuhan Virus.” Here’s an idea: let’s call it the “Xi Virus.” 🤣
“Glenn Kirschner is now declaring that Trump should be charged with negligent homicide ”
Anything to get on the air. That is how much concern the left and the MSM have over a real crisis that affects all Americans.
Actually, Trump’s issues fall into two broad, somewhat overlapping, but nevertheless different categories.
One is abuse of power, which, with regard to Trump, the Republicans did not and probably will never recognize, because they politically profit from it. (Regrettable, because allowed to stand, it becomes self-perpetuating, and furthermore, fundamentally alters the Constitutionally-mandated balance of power between the three branches. Senate Republicans may not want to face facts, but in failing to convict Trump, they castrated themselves).
The other area is incompetence. And there, neither Republicans nor Democrats will seriously pursue indictment, let alone conviction, of a politician on that charge, because almost all of them are guilty of that to a substantial degree.
Biologist:
“The other area is incompetence. And there, neither Republicans nor Democrats will seriously pursue indictment, let alone conviction, of a politician on that charge, because almost all of them are guilty of that to a substantial degree.”
**********************
Sorta like biologists sans legal training commenting on issues of law.
Hey, if we need to know the finer points of whiplash liability we’ll ask you. Constitutional questions are approachable by citizens, as are the difference between collusion and criminal conspiracy, something our host is purposefully confused about.
Constitutional questions are approachable by citizens…
So are claymores. And you prove everyday how irresponsible it is to approach either without reason or logic.
“Glenn Kirschner is now declaring that Trump should be charged with negligent homicide over his conduct.”
********************
Hahahahaha!
I was always on the lookout for novel ways to apply homicide . . .
He’s a former prosecutor hocking his legal wares on MSNBC. He hasn’t yet realized he’s found a novel way to kill a legal career. Seriously though, this is a poster child for the weaponization of a law degree.
KIRSCHNER has deep TRUMP SYNDROME/HATRED – he reflects MSNBC entire attitude toward Pre. Trump – the shear hate is driving these people crazy and irrational. Kirschner and MSNBC MGMT need to be isolated with their ideas and need to stop this hatred and work to bring this country together vs tearing it apart.
WGAF?
JT’s stable of easily distractable and perpetually outraged regular right wing posters.
What’s the hit count today?
Funny how you always seem to “hit” every line in the water.
Yeah, us silly right-wingers outraged over so-called legal propaganda intended to undermine a presidency. You’ve proven yourself to be as disconnected from true legal theory and ethics as any contributor on this blog. Hit count? Does it really matter how many times JT has to hit you over the head? You clearly are not ever going to have an aha moment; at least not under your most recent user ID.
Olly. Dude!
The guy sent a tweet!
WGAF?
The guy sent a tweet!
Good to know we won’t be seeing you get in a lather the next time the President or anyone you abhor, tweets.
Olly! Dude!
What the President says is news. He’s the most powerful man in the f…g universe. A retired AUSA is not somehow his equivalent.
Goodness, this means Obama is open to prosecution for his handling of the H1N1 virus.
Paul –
“Obama’s acting director of health and human services declared H1N1 a public health emergency on April 26, 2009.
That was when only 20 cases of H1N1 — and no deaths — around the country had been confirmed.
Two days later, the administration made an initial funding request for H1N1 to Congress. Eventually $7.65 billion was allocated for a vaccine and other measures.
H1N1 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on June 11, 2009.”
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/04/facebook-posts/president-obama-declared-h1n1-public-health-emerge/
Obama also left a WH pandemic task force with 40 positions and an NSC seat for future crises.
btb:
“Obama also left a WH pandemic task force with 40 positions and an NSC seat for future crises.”
********************
And so did Trump:
From your own source, Politifact:
“Trump “fired the Pandemic Response Team”
This needs context. “Fired” is a strong term for what happened, and Trump recently created a team to lead the government’s response to COVID-19.
In May 2018, Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer, the senior director of global health and biodefense on the National Security Council, left the administration. He was in charge of the U.S. response to pandemics.
After Ziemer’s departure, the global health team was reorganized as part of an effort by then-National Security Adviser John Bolton. Meanwhile, Tom Bossert, a homeland security adviser who recommended strong defenses against disease, left shortly after Bolton arrived.
The White House didn’t replace either White House official or his team. Instead, Trump looked within his administration to fill roles for the coronavirus response.
In January, Trump appointed his Health and Human Services secretary, Alex Azar, to chair a coronavirus task force. On Feb. 26, he announced that Vice President Mike Pence would take charge of the U.S. response to the coronavirus.”
I make that a two inch nose grower simply because you implied the maladministration but had the good sense not to spout the obvious lie as you did about the CDC tests.
Zeimer (NSC member, admiral and doctor) and Bossert were removed form their positions and the task force dissolved. That was in May of 2018, or 19 months before January 2020 when the coronavirus was already lose and the administration caught with their pants down.
btb:
Guess your reading/comprehension issues persist. Good news: There’s therapy for that. Until you get it, we’ll just ignore you and the rantings.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Health, diplomatically told Congress:
“It would be nice if the office was still there.”
As TIA likes to say, “This isn’t that difficult.”
Anonymous;
Looks like reading is a challenge for you, too. A reorganization is hardly dissolving anything and why Fauci can’t find his rear-end with a map isn’t really our concern. He’s hardly the best and brightest.
“Fauci can’t find his rear-end with a map isn’t really our concern. He’s hardly the best and brightest.”
Said like the pig you are, mespo.
Anonymous:
“Said like the pig you are, mespo.”
*************************
“He who throws dirt loses ground.” You oughta write that over your door frame.
Not really.
Got it right the first time: “Said like the pig you are, mespo.”
Anonymous:
It’s always funny when the preschoolers get out of class, and onto mommy’s keyboards.
“It would be nice” if no one had to pay taxes but that doesn’t mean it would be the best thing to do. That is why Anonymous the Stupid needs to complete the thought but he finds it difficult to figure out what a thought is.”
Allan the Blog Idiot tries, without success, to justify the indefensible.
“It would be nice…” doesn’t mean anything is necessary or good Anonymous the Stupid.
My example was:
“It would be nice” if no one had to pay taxes but that doesn’t mean it would be the best thing to do. That is why Anonymous the Stupid needs to complete the thought but he finds it difficult to figure out what a thought is.”
Ex-Obama official fires back: Trump was left with ‘global health infrastructure’
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/487646-ex-obama-official-fires-back-at-trump-obama-left-him-a-global-health
Mespo should stick with what he purports to know — the law. Yesterday he was spouting off about ineffective test kits and was quickly corrected by a microbiologist.
Anonymous:
I “spouted off” about a report of inefficiencies in the WHO testing kit. That’s hardly outside of anyone’s purview.
Mespo, you linked no source for your claim.
Here you go:
“….In a somewhat rambling answer to a question related to W.H.O. tests, Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, said: “It doesn’t help to put out a test where 50 percent or 47 percent were false positives. Imagine what that would mean to the American people. Imagine what that would mean to tell someone they were positive when they weren’t.”
It was not clear where Dr. Birx got those figures, but obviously such an inaccurate test would be worthless. Late on Tuesday night, Dr. Birx confirmed that although she was responding to a question about the W.H.O. test, she was referring to a study of an early diagnostic test used in China.
The paper found that, in a specific subset of those tested in China — asymptomatic contacts of known cases — the tests wrongly found them to be positive 47 percent of the time.
But there have been no suggestions that the W.H.O. test, distributed worldwide, has such significant accuracy problems. On Tuesday night, Dr. Birx said she has not looked into the W.H.O. test, “but I assume it is functional.”…”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/health/coronavirus-tests-who.html
“On Tuesday night, Dr. Birx said she has not looked into the W.H.O. test, “but I assume it is functional.”…”
***************
Assuming is good!
Mespo is the guy accusing others of reading complrehension problems:
“Late on Tuesday night, Dr. Birx confirmed that although she was responding to a question about the W.H.O. test, she was referring to a study of an early diagnostic test used in China.
The paper found that, in a specific subset of those tested in China — asymptomatic contacts of known cases — the tests wrongly found them to be positive 47 percent of the time.”
btb:
“Late on Tuesday night, Dr. Birx confirmed that although she was responding to a question about the W.H.O. test, she was referring to a study of an early diagnostic test used in China.
****************
Yeah, she’s real credible. Birx the pretzel thinker probably was actually referring to some other subset of tests in Scandinavia she thought about when she said WHO tests. So she’s got that going for her. Wonder if she’s a senile as Biden. You hitch your wagons to the most improbable of stars. BTW, here a real clear thinker unimpeded by Brix’s brain flatulence:
“Dr. Nicole Saphier told Breitbart News Daily on Friday morning that the reason the U.S. had rejected coronavirus test kits from abroad is that they had a 48% false negative rate, meaning sick people would believe, falsely, they were fine.”
You oughta copy her. It’s be good for your circular mind to think on the linear for a while.
Oh, here’s her CV. Board certified radiologist? Sloan Kettering ring a bell?
https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/nicole-saphier
Mespo, putting aside that I didn’t put her on the podium, your hero did, the fact that your source for a mistaken claim is an idiot doesn’t work for you. You get that, right? Your an attorney.
btb:
When you get past indecipherable babble let me know. That Brix is a buffoon doesn’t refute Saphier.
Take your pick genius:
“And the truth is, the testing kits being used in China — they were reporting up to a 48% false negative rate. So if you got a negative test result, that didn’t actually mean that they didn’t have the virus.””
How can anyone trust what Anon says?
There seems to be a lot of questions and concerns about the WHO testing kits, the accuracy, who was supposed to get the kits and how long WHO kits would take to get into the American market if they happen to be given and accepted by the US.
Here is a quote from the NYTimes article: “Dr. Anne Schuchat, deputy principal director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, confirmed that the W.H.O. gave test kits “primarily to underresourced countries.” Another administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the W.H.O. had never offered to sell or give tests to the United States.” From just these two statements and a lot more that have been made it becomes clear that no one actually has proof of what happened with the WHO kits and very likely they would not be destined for the US. In reference to the entire NYTimes piece one has to recognize that the NYTimes has a severe bias and an agenda which means that one cannot trust the the NYT because it lies by commission or omission.
What else is there about the kits? If the WHO kits were valid and actually intended for the US one has to recognize there was a time factor before those kits could be used. They would have to first be evaluated by the FDA who had already stopped university researchers from testing on their own. That means the testing would not start for a significant length of time.
In the same time frame the US had testing kits under the control of the hubris laden FDA and CDC. Therefore there may have been no reason to use anyone else’s kits. We don’t know the truth because right now because almost everyone is covering their assets. Whoever controlled the kits seems to have made a major mistake so the kits could not be used. That put us back at square one. This was a major problem in the control of the virus but it is my guess that the travel ban on China was much more important. Whomever was at fault for the faulty kits was most definitely not the fault of the President.
Stick to what you know, buddy. The microbiologist contradicted you.
Anonymous:
“Stick to what you know, buddy. The microbiologist contradicted you.”
************************
You mean one anonymous self-proclaimed microbiologist did while another went public. Oh who to believe?
You need a bridge?
Take note how Stupid Anonymous the Stupid is. He says”was quickly corrected” but doesn’t say what that is. The reason why is he is Stupid and when he tries to repeat things using his own words he makes too many mistakes. That is why he generalizes everything to the extreme or he copies what he thinks is agreeing with him even though in the past what he copied disagreed with him.
Anonymous the Stupid remains true to his name.
Try to keep up, Allan. You’re tripping all over yourself, so it must be hard, but keep trying little buddy.
Anonymous the Stupid how can anyone keep up with your comments that say nothing?
Reposting my response that you are responding to so others can see true stupidity in action..
Take note how Stupid Anonymous the Stupid is. He says”was quickly corrected” but doesn’t say what that is. The reason why is he is Stupid and when he tries to repeat things using his own words he makes too many mistakes. That is why he generalizes everything to the extreme or he copies what he thinks is agreeing with him even though in the past what he copied disagreed with him.
Anonymous the Stupid remains true to his name.
It’s nice to know that someone gets under Allan’s skin. He obviously doesn’t like people who disagree with him, especially when they run circles around him.
“It’s nice to know that someone gets under Allan’s skin.”
Whose that? I love people that disagree but have reasons behind the disagreement. You are not one of them. You are Anonymous the Stupid.
“Whose [sic] that?” -Allan, the blog’s scholar
lol
Yep, Anonymous. The Anonymous who gets under Allan skin. He doesn’t want people to be able to post comments anonymously.
Bottom line? He’s an old lunkhead.
Here’s the citation for you:
https://www.breitbart.com/health/2020/03/13/coronavirus-u-s-rejected-foreign-testing-kits-because-of-48-false-negative-rate/
Yeah, my Breitbart is always a day late in the mail too.
See above.
Just above.
btb:
Wouldn’t matter. You couldn’t read it.
Here’s yesterday’s exchange:
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/03/15/american-university-professor-calls-for-trump-impeachment-over-the-coronavirus-response/comment-page-3/#comment-1931857
Mespo’s comment:
mespo727272 says:March 17, 2020 at 5:29 PM
” … partly due to his administration declining WHO offered tests weeks ago (no one in the administration will say who made that call).”
*******************
Yeah we should have accepted those WHO test kits with a 48% false negative rate. Would really have helped those infected to think they weren’t.
Anonymous’ response:
Anonymous says: March 17, 2020 at 5:58 PM
Dr. Nicole Saphier:
“She said, given the urgency, that the U.S. should have used even faulty tests at the start, because they would at least have caught some of the positive cases.”
https://www.breitbart.com/health/2020/03/13/coronavirus-u-s-rejected-foreign-testing-kits-because-of-48-false-negative-rate/
Excerpts:
1)
‘Dr. Nicole Saphier told Breitbart News Daily on Friday morning that the reason the U.S. had rejected coronavirus test kits from abroad is that they had a 48% false negative rate, meaning sick people would believe, falsely, they were fine.
Saphier is a former microbiologist who appears frequently on Fox News as a contributor. She is also the author of Make America Healthy Again: How Bad Behavior and Big Government Caused a Trillion-Dollar Crisis.
Saphier generally praised the U.S. response to coronavirus, but said that “the one thing” that was “unacceptable” was the lack of testing kits, noting that the private sector had not been harnessed.’
2)
‘The U.S., she noted, developed its own test, but was also “found to be faulty” once it was distributed.
“This is not so simple as just a yes-or-no answer … it’s very complicated,” she said, noting that some of the criticism was “a little unfair.”
She said, given the urgency, that the U.S. should have used even faulty tests at the start, because they would at least have caught some of the positive cases.
Dr. Saphier noted that South Korea had been successful at testing because of mass production of testing kits by private biotech companies.’
The Democrats and MSM were trying to reverse the election of 2016 by impeaching the President and their eyes were not on the Chinese virus rather their eyes were on the election.
While being tried Trump acted with one of the most important actions to keep America safe. He banned Chinese travel. The media and the Democrats called Trump stupid and a racist. A few days later Trump was found innocent but the eyes of the media and the Democrats focused on how unfair things were without focusing on the business of government.
pathetically irresponsible.report from the legal analyst, fomenting once again anger and hatred against our President at this very difficult time…with a novel use of the law to vent his own personal venom
Let’s be honest: the Horiuchi case failed because the Weavers were considered game.
==
That aside, if there’s a discrete instance that provides evidence toward the thesis that the corps of federal prosecutors is chock-a-block with abusive shysters, this is it. Can we please take away their absolute immunity, and subject them to mixed professional – lay disciplinary tribunals? Protecting the community means disbarment.
Mr. Kirschner, the mentally-challenged jackanapes, is proof that the corona virus will be easier to contain and treat than the Left’s TDS.
– lost me at msnbc
The problem is Trump keeps doing things as President that leave people looking for ways to remedy the situation. At least our country does need to look ahead as to what kind of limitations on presidential powers that can be abused by corrupt or immoral people
You haven’t a clue as to what the terms ‘corrupt’ and ‘immoral’ mean.
So far President Trump has followed the law and for the most part the cases brought against his administrative acts were found legal by the courts. That demonstrates the President stayed within his bounds while his detractors didn’t.
If you are concerned about Presidential power then you would be concerned about how our legislature hasn’t functioned and left a void. You would also concerned with Obama’s statement about having a pen and a telephone.
Martha, you are looking at things in a biased fashion and you don’t apply the Dershowitz rule of ‘putting the shoe on the other foot’. I lean somewhat libertarian so I agree with some of your concerns but fault you for your bias.