microphones on mute, use the chat box over there for requests to the speakerhen we get into the q&a time. and this event will be viewable online, i think in about 48 hours after the event. so let me say a few words about our speaker, dr. david rose, professor of economics at the university of missouri-st. louis. he served as the department director of graduate studies and department chair over there. he received his ph.d. in economics from the university of virginia. he s published numerous scholarly articles, his work has been funded but the national city institutes of millionth, the earhart foundation, the john r. templeton foundation. dr. rose also contributes to policy debates on topics ranging from social security, monetary policy, judicial philosophy, education reform and health care reform. he does work on the evolution are of firms and what he calls the new business ethics. i d love to hear more about that, business ethics. he s now in his second term on the u.s. civi
case of virus elements as well, but not nearly as worrisome as we thought before. there are promising treatments on the way. we will talk about half a dozen cleared for takeoff, in face two, phase three trials. not all of them but, prompted the president is optimistic that vaccine or some type of treatment would be ready by year s end. the surge we saw in china, shanghai index notching a 6% gain. highest momentum it has not seen in a better part of a month. you re seeing similar robust gains across europe, european continent, optimistic even in more problematic places things are picking up. you have the good economic news and good take over news. one in the food delivery arena. one with whisperings to come, initial public offerings and follow-up offers could become all the rage. this is interesting subset market too heady for folks right now? share later in the broadcast by sheer statistical measures it is not, it is not too frothy. a view you re not often hearing people are
bronze. you ran in the 30 rock. i don t remember. the game has changed a lot from 6:00 to 8:00. i think when you guys are training, it s more like machine and men and women. you all like the training regiment when you went through in 68, we could not dream of having that technology your water station is unfiltered camel and donut holes and you keep going. also, i ran with chuck taylor. we didn t know. we thought - eugene robinson, i hear you laughing there. you see pictures of basketball stars in the nba in the 1960s, they re wearing the converse all-stars. i love them. it s canvas and this is assault right here. you wonder how they did not blow up their knees every night. exactly, you can t imagine how they did not do it. i guess they were pretty good athletes. it s how you run, joe. yeah. we used to run in marathon in exactly, jean and i. they kicked me out of the olympics and jean showed solidarity. yeah, exactly. mike compares me to i think
ballot for stoking an insurrection in violation of section three of the 14th amendment. and by all accounts, the justices posture during this arguments suggest the court is looking for ways to punt on that central question, did donald trump incited insurrection, and instead hand the issue may be to congress. basically to let some other group of people deal with the possible insurrectionist president being elected another day. which would seem to be a win for donald trump. seemed to be a win. because even if mr. trump was taking his victory lap, a different judge in a different courtroom released this one page order. it is here by ordered, adjudged, and decreed that after a jury trial before the honorable luis a caplan, plaintive e. jean carroll has judgment for damages against the defendant, donald j trump, for an aggregate sum of $83,300,000. that order is essentially a bill. donald trump must pay the 83 point $3 million he owes to e. jean carroll immediately. it does not ma
former president trump asserts that there was a politicized process that resulted in his prosecution related to classified documents and other things? so for the public, if democrats and this administration say trust the department of justice, trust the institutions, but you re also arguing here gratuitous political cheap shots and false assertions. how are they to process this? i talked about this a minute ago, and i think, you know, when you have the former attorney general, when you have the former acting fbi director, when you have the former general counsel of the fbi, you know, these are experienced people at the justice department who spent decades working at the justice department and they re saying it s gratuitous, this isn t appropriate. this is inconsistent with the doj policy and practice. that s them saying it. we agree. you heard the president speak forcefully about this last night. you heard the vice president speak forcefully about this today. we agree that