Digby wrote:Edit - As an aside the latest absurd comments will distract from any coverage on Trump or his cronies benefiting financially from the various drugs they've pushed without cause during these times
Ha. You're saying that as if it isn't the entire game.
Trump gets lots of attention. Media frenzy keeps everybody clicking. GOP get to do whatever they want. Democrats get to moan and look virtuous. Everybody wins!
“I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen,” Trump said Friday. He added that it was a “very sarcastic question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside.”
Leaving to one side he didn't simply get part way through being the ideas man and positing we could inject people with disinfectant before realising he was out of his depth and start asking for people to speak to medical doctors, and supposing we instead oddly take him at his word he was just taking the piss, the question then would be what the blazes does he think he's doing using a press conference to update important information to entertain himself in such fashion?
This story doesn't seem to have picked up much coverage, but it's an odd one given he headed up the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority for several years and they've just had a massive funding increase in light of the pandemic and now they're seeking new leadership. Supposing Dr Bright isn't nuts this could and should end up being a bigger problem for Trump than claiming we didn't know he was being sarcastic about disinfectant
This story doesn't seem to have picked up much coverage, but it's an odd one given he headed up the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority for several years and they've just had a massive funding increase in light of the pandemic and now they're seeking new leadership. Supposing Dr Bright isn't nuts this could and should end up being a bigger problem for Trump than claiming we didn't know he was being sarcastic about disinfectant
"I have never met him". What a surprise.
There may be a situation here where Jared Kushner and a couple of scheming non-medically qualified "economic advisors" have gone and unilaterally stocked up on the drug based on the speculation by Trump and Faux News, who were pushing it hard. There has probably been a large chunk of wedge spunked away on this drug, and god knows what other speculators. Fuck it just gets worse and worse. Pretty much a rudderless ship.
This story doesn't seem to have picked up much coverage, but it's an odd one given he headed up the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority for several years and they've just had a massive funding increase in light of the pandemic and now they're seeking new leadership. Supposing Dr Bright isn't nuts this could and should end up being a bigger problem for Trump than claiming we didn't know he was being sarcastic about disinfectant
"I have never met him". What a surprise.
There may be a situation here where Jared Kushner and a couple of scheming non-medically qualified "economic advisors" have gone and unilaterally stocked up on the drug based on the speculation by Trump and Faux News, who were pushing it hard. There has probably been a large chunk of wedge spunked away on this drug, and god knows what other speculators. Fuck it just gets worse and worse. Pretty much a rudderless ship.
The I've never met him line at least suggests some element of social distancing has been understood, I say give him four more years, he's just getting good at all this, people say he really gets it now.
Another question, has anyone heard from Dr Redfield since he slapped Trump around live in a press conference?
He's the chap who, other than heading up the CDC, said the second round of covid coming back this winter could be much worse to handle, in part as it'd run alongside the seasonal flu outbreak, Trump wasn't happy about that because he wants to say it's over and directly said Redfield had been totally misquoted he'd spoken to him the doctor agreed he was misquoted and the story was absurd, the good doctor when then asked said he was accurately quoted in the papers (I think specifically the Washington Post) at that same press conference. And that cannot have gone over well to have someone sharing a stage to so clearly note Trump is full of shite
Sandydragon wrote:I’m slightly amazed that Dr Fauci is still there.
In body at least. They should have Fauci, whoever is modeling the Johns Hopkins data, and representatives of the CDC and FEMA when needed. Crisp updated fact. It’s hard to overstate how messy things are here on the eastern seaboard. There is this hazy half-response feel out and about as there is no centralized informed up to date narrative. The executive branch of the federal government is an absolute millstone, clearly confounding efforts at an effective response. Empathy amongst members of the public is strong, but the lack of quality leadership in key positions of power is staggering. There is so much talent and expertise here but it blocked by a massive wall of privilege that insulates a disconnected wealthy few from the realty in the ground. It’s really sad to see.
My 10 year old kids know that bleach is poison. Everything in the cleaning cupboard is poison. They have known that since they were ... 2 I think. Coco, is this the last straw? Is there a last straw?
A souffle is always good for a collapse. I commented on the flan because we perhaps use the term differently elsewhere, though we're on the move ourselves as flan is seemingly passe and modern Britain is more about quiche, whilst also oddly noting real men don't eat quiche, maybe it's having to call it quiche that gave us Brexit, similarly you don't find many pilchards anymore (other than in cabinet) we now have to buy Cornish sardines.
Digby wrote:Christ alive you'd struggle to sue your own government, why are there lawyers willing to waste their time trying to sue a foreign sovereign nation? Snowballs in hell have historically stood a better chance. I'm assuming this gets dismissed at the earliest opportunity and it's just some very weird grandstanding to bolster a wider publicity campaign
No reason why you can't sue a foreign government as long as they've got assets in your country. I think the main problems here are that the discovery will include advice given by the US government and if there is a tort it likely didn't occur in Missouri.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Digby wrote:Christ alive you'd struggle to sue your own government, why are there lawyers willing to waste their time trying to sue a foreign sovereign nation? Snowballs in hell have historically stood a better chance. I'm assuming this gets dismissed at the earliest opportunity and it's just some very weird grandstanding to bolster a wider publicity campaign
No reason why you can't sue a foreign government as long as they've got assets in your country. I think the main problems here are that the discovery will include advice given by the US government and if there is a tort it likely didn't occur in Missouri.
You'd like to think they would have considered that, but rudderless leadership seems the order of the day.
Digby wrote:Christ alive you'd struggle to sue your own government, why are there lawyers willing to waste their time trying to sue a foreign sovereign nation? Snowballs in hell have historically stood a better chance. I'm assuming this gets dismissed at the earliest opportunity and it's just some very weird grandstanding to bolster a wider publicity campaign
No reason why you can't sue a foreign government as long as they've got assets in your country. I think the main problems here are that the discovery will include advice given by the US government and if there is a tort it likely didn't occur in Missouri.
You'd like to think they would have considered that, but rudderless leadership seems the order of the day.
I think it's just a Trumpy lawsuit: started with much fanfare against a perceived wrong, to be dropped quietly like a stone later.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Digby wrote:Christ alive you'd struggle to sue your own government, why are there lawyers willing to waste their time trying to sue a foreign sovereign nation? Snowballs in hell have historically stood a better chance. I'm assuming this gets dismissed at the earliest opportunity and it's just some very weird grandstanding to bolster a wider publicity campaign
No reason why you can't sue a foreign government as long as they've got assets in your country. I think the main problems here are that the discovery will include advice given by the US government and if there is a tort it likely didn't occur in Missouri.
In the US you'd have to get around the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which wouldn't be easy. There are I'm led to believe some reasonably big exceptions as it pertains to trade, but I think that's for actions based on a commercial activity, and whilst this is impacting commerce that's not the same thing, or you could hope China agrees to be sued which would circumvent their immunity, or (and this might be what the conspiracy theorists are getting their funding) if what China did was deliberate and can be ascribed as a terrorist act then China would also have no immunity. Otherwise China probably wouldn't even bother replying to a suit or even a summons, and a court would just dismiss the suit without any hearing taking place
The USA could potentially look at a deal that cuts though immunity, but I don't know how they could do that retrospectively and it'd cut two ways you'd imagine with the USA saying sure you can have standing to sue us, and I'm guessing the USA might think there's the odd one or two actions nationals of other countries might like to sue them for.
