Connect with us

Washington

Analysis | No, Biden won’t be on performance-enhancing drugs for the debate

Published

on

Analysis | No, Biden won’t be on performance-enhancing drugs for the debate


Allies of Donald Trump have painted themselves into a cognitive corner. President Biden is unfit for office, they argue, because he is so old, and his mental abilities have deteriorated markedly. But then Biden will, say, deliver a State of the Union address in which he is energetic and pointed for more than an hour.

So they modify their claim: Biden is addled and wandering, except when he is given some sort of medication, perhaps a stimulant, that reverses that effect. And here we are, with Trump and those seeking his reelection to the White House demanding that Biden submit to some sort of drug test before this week’s first presidential debate, purportedly in effort to sniff out this theoretical drug.

Experts who spoke with The Washington Post, though, confirm that no such medicine exists.

At the outset, we should recognize that this claim is generally not offered seriously. It is, instead, an effort to escape the aforementioned contradiction, a way to hold both that Biden is incapable of serving as president and yet, unquestionably at times, not demonstrating any such impairment. What’s more, the demand that Biden undergo a drug test is itself not serious. It is, instead, meant to create a condition that allows Trump and his allies to continue to claim that any strong performance from Biden is a function of medication. The result is win-win for Trump, who can blame any loss on this wonder drug.

Advertisement

If you haven’t been paying close attention to the debate (such as it is) over this idea, consider a snippet of conversation that aired on Fox Business on Tuesday morning.

Host Maria Bartiromo — no stranger to conspiratorial argumentation — hosted Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) where she offered an observation made by Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Tex.).

“Jackson says Biden will have been at Camp David for a full week before the debate,” Bartiromo said, “and that they’re probably experimenting with getting doses right. Giving him medicine ahead of the debate.”

Burlison agreed that this was possible, though he offered that it might be more innocuous than medication. Perhaps, he said, Biden’s team is “jack[ing] him up on Mountain Dew.”

Jackson, you will recall, was Trump’s personal doctor while Trump was in the White House. He is not an expert on cognition or cognition-related illnesses, though he is familiar with drug prescription.

Advertisement

“Nothing like that exists,” Thomas Wisniewski, director of the NYU Langone Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, told The Washington Post by phone. “There are no medications or stimulants that can reverse a dementing process transiently.”

“All of those sorts of things can perhaps make an individual more alert, but quite often that can just exacerbate their confusion, as well,” he added. “They can be more stimulated, but they are not going to be behaving in a more cogent or normal fashion as a result of being stimulated by anything. Very often it’s the reverse.”

Adam Brickman, associate professor of neuropsychology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, concurred with that assessment.

“I’m not aware of any medications that would reverse or mask cognitive decline,” Brickman said. What’s more, he noted that “the association between energy and cognition is a very weak one. In other words, someone could have low energy but totally intact cognition and vice versa.”

Both doctors noted that such a medication would be of enormous benefit. Reversing cognitive decline, after all, would mean turning back the damage done from diseases that impair cognition in the first place. It would be akin not just to treating the pain of a broken bone but, instead, to directly healing the break itself. Sadly, no such drug for cognition exists.

Advertisement

Again, the argument that Biden is or could be receiving targeted treatment to improve his mental state fails multiple logical tests. Why, for example, would he not simply take this medication all the time? Why would he need to retest his dosage for a debate after giving a lengthy State of the Union address? The answer is that there is no good answer, that the intent of the allegations is simply to maintain the political argument that Biden is mentally deficient even in the face of his performing above expectations in a debate.

Not that that argument is itself well-grounded, as Brickman noted.

“It’s not possible to conclude or to determine whether someone has subtle cognitive change without doing a true clinical evaluation,” he said. “So to judge whether there’s an underlying disease or neurodegenerative condition based on public speeches or interactions that are captured by the press is irresponsible.”

Wisniewski offered a more succinct dismissal of the claims being made by Trumpworld.

“It’s spurious,” he said. “It’s nonsensical.”

Advertisement

In other words, if Biden fares better in the debate this week, it’s not because of a secret Camp David drug-dosing regimen that enabled the administration to mask Biden’s physical degeneration. It’s because Biden out-debated the guy who won’t accept that that’s possible.



Source link

Washington

Judge tosses Trump Media’s $3.8 billion defamation suit against The Washington Post | CNN Business

Published

on

Judge tosses Trump Media’s .8 billion defamation suit against The Washington Post | CNN Business


Another one of President Donald Trump’s lawsuits against a news organization has fizzled out.

This time, it is a defamation lawsuit that the Trump Media and Technology Group brought against The Washington Post in 2023 over a story titled “Trust linked to porn-friendly bank could gain a stake in Trump’s Truth Social.”

A federal judge in Florida has thrown out the suit, saying that Trump Media “failed to present evidence that would allow a jury to find by clear and convincing evidence” that The Post “published the allegedly defamatory statements with actual malice.”

US District Judge Thomas Barber’s conclusion came during the summary judgment phase of the case, when a judge can evaluate evidence and make a determination before proceeding to trial.

Advertisement

The Post’s lawyers argued that Trump Media could not prove “actual malice,” the high legal standard that public figures must meet to prevail in a defamation case. It means that the defendant either knew a claim was false or displayed “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

The Post’s reporter who wrote the story in question, Drew Harwell, “thoroughly investigated” the subject and “had confidence in the article’s accuracy at the time of publication,” the newspaper’s lawyers wrote.

In a summary docket entry last week, first reported by Reason magazine, Barber sided with the Post. He said he would issue a full opinion later.

The Post itself reported on the legal victory on Tuesday. “We are pleased with the court’s decision and look forward to reviewing its written order upon release,” a spokesperson told CNN.

A spokesperson for Trump Media did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment, but the company told The Post, “We believe a jury should decide whether these falsehoods were actionable and will evaluate whether to appeal last week’s ruling in due course. We will also continue to hold the media accountable.”

Advertisement

Trump Media positions itself as an opponent of, and an alternative to, traditional tech and media companies. It is best known for operating Truth Social, a relatively small social network favored by the president.

The publicly traded company has been losing money for years; it made less than $1 million in revenue in the first quarter of this year, according to public filings.

The company has repeatedly filed lawsuits over news coverage it deemed false. A defamation lawsuit against The Guardian and other defendants was thrown out by a different Florida judge last November. Trump Media initially filed an amended complaint, but then dropped the matter altogether in April.

Trump Media’s suit against the Post accused the newspaper of a “conspiracy” to harm the company and sought $3.8 billion in damages.

The lawsuit lawyers succeeded in narrowing the case considerably and asserted that Truth Media could not satisfy the “heavy burden” of the actual malice standard.

Advertisement

In May, while awaiting the judge’s ruling, The Post published a correction to the 2023 story stating that “discovery in the ongoing litigation has established” that two assertions in the story were incorrect. But the correction emphasized that the assertions were “based on The Post’s reporting at the time of publication.”

Trump and his businesses have a long history of getting publicity from lawsuits, only to see judges later throw them out.

In April, a federal judge dismissed Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a lewd birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein bearing his name. Trump refiled that suit in May. He also has pending litigation against the BBC, The New York Times and the Des Moines Register.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Washington

Washington records world’s worst air quality for a city after 850,000 Fourth of July fireworks

Published

on

Washington records world’s worst air quality for a city after 850,000 Fourth of July fireworks


Washington DC residents breathed in “unhealthy” air for hours after a 40-minute Independence Day fireworks show over the National Mall on Saturday night, with the country’s capital briefly recording the worst air quality of any major city in the world.

The highly emitting display, which the president called “spectacular”, came as the Trump administration rolls back an unprecedented number of pollution controls.

Hourly concentrations of particulate matter rose to 6.7 times their pre-fireworks levels, according to a Tuesday analysis from the company Clarity Movement based on its network of 26 air quality sensors throughout the city in partnership with the local department of energy and environment. Every one of those sensors reached air quality levels which the Environmental Protection Agency deems “unhealthy for sensitive groups” during the event, the researchers found, with some recording even worse levels of emissions.

Levels of particulate matter peaked at 4am on Sunday, approximately five hours after the display concluded, according to the new analysis. It remained elevated for approximately five hours after reaching its peak, the authors found, with city officials issuing a Code Red alert.

Advertisement
Smoke hangs in the air as the Independence Day fireworks launch over Washington. Photograph: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images

“Outdoor air quality is unhealthy for seniors, kids, people with medical conditions,” the alert said. “General public may experience health issues. Limit time outside.”

The south-west region of DC experienced the highest pollution levels, the report’s authors found, probably because of its proximity to one of the fireworks launch sites in West Potomac park, as well as overnight meteorological conditions that trapped smoke over the area.

That highly polluted air probably drifted into Arlington, Virginia, said David Lu, CEO and co-founder of Clarity Movement.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have sensors there to confirm it,” he said. “That’s exactly why expanding real-time air quality monitoring matters. Without comprehensive coverage, communities can be exposed to significant pollution events that go undetected.”

The air quality across the city could have been even worse in the aftermath of the display if it were not for thunderstorms that struck the city on Sunday evening.

Advertisement
Smoke hangs in the air as the Independence Day fireworks launch over Washington. Photograph: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images

“Despite the scale of the fireworks display, the city’s air quality avoided a worst-case scenario thanks to favorable weather conditions and the timing of the event,” said Lu.

The Fourth of July fireworks show, organized by the Trump-backed non-profit Freedom 250, began at 11pm on Saturday evening. It involved more than 850,000 fireworks launched from 10 sites across the capital, the organizers said. (A typical Independence Day show in DC involves just 17,000 shells.)

Trump on social media called the show “the Most Spectacular Fireworks Show I have ever seen, and I’ve seen them all”.

The fanfare came as the region was baking under an extreme heatwave, which brought triple-digit temperatures to the city hours earlier. For a time after the fireworks show, the city recorded the worst air quality of any major city in the world, according to AirNow, the Environmental Protection Agency website that reports air quality measurements from its monitoring stations.

Asked to comment, a White House spokesperson, Taylor Rogers, said: “It was the largest and greatest firework display in the history of our country to properly celebrate America’s 250th birthday! Every year, fireworks on the Fourth of July cause short-term spikes in air quality across the United States, including Washington, DC. This was not unique to the 250th fireworks celebrations in our nation’s capital.”

Advertisement

The Guardian has contacted Freedom 250 for comment.

Americans shoot nearly 300m lb of fireworks into the atmosphere every year, according to the American Lung Association, letting off lung-harming gases such as sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

The Trump administration has, since re-entering office, engaged in a wide-ranging assault on pollution controls, exempting polluting facilities from emissions regulations, boosting coal power, and halting the consideration of the value of lives saved when restricting fine particulate matter and ozone. On 4 July, the president also pardoned nine individuals convicted of violations related to the Clean Air Act, including people found to have tampered with emissions control equipment in cars or selling parts to bypass air pollution standards.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Washington

Question of the week: What does Santana Moss think of Washington’s WR depth?

Published

on

Question of the week: What does Santana Moss think of Washington’s WR depth?


The Washington Commanders are looking for a bounce back performance from their offense, and they’ll need their wide receivers to take a step up to do so.

Terry McLaurin is the clear No. 1 option at the position, but after him, there are several questions about how the rest of the room will shake out. The No. 2 spot is wide open, and there are several players who could fit the role and others in David Blough’s new scheme. Analysts Santana Moss, Logan Paulsen and Fred Smoot broke down the position on one of the most recent “Command Center” podcast episodes, and as one of the franchise’s all-time best receivers, Moss had a few thoughts on the group. Here’s his assessment on three wideouts and how they could fit into the offense.

“Knowing that he can play both outside and inside, I would think with some of the guys and their size and their experience, I would mainly probably see Antonio attack that middle. I think his route running ability is already to the level of some of these guys who have already played at this level. And just showing me that you don’t look like that this is new to you … He ain’t scared to go out and compete against these guys. To me — and we don’t know anything; we’re just sitting here speculating and assuming — I’d say he’s a slot guy out the gate.”

“I think if I had to just say if I look at that paper, and I asked any coach in this building by name how they think this guy played…if you tell me that Burks played well this offseason, he would be my No. 2 out the gate. He would be my No. 2 wide receiver because one: he brings size, he brings speed, he brings a gear at that size that a lot of people ain’t comfortable checking … You got a guy with size, leaping ability, the catch radius and can run.”

Advertisement

“They talk about how he was one of those guys from Day 1 that could play every position, and that’s stemming from him being a quarterback. Quarterbacks learn the game a little different from just a regular skill position guy. Luke came in here, and he knew X, he knew Z, he knew Gator. When you have those intangibles and you have that kind of mindset when it comes to playing that position, they can use him where they want to use him. That’s why I said he’s a great committee guy. He’s a guy that I know I’m gonna have on special teams as a returner, and guess what? If he’s not the starter, I’m okay with that because I know I’m going to ask more of him if somebody needs to take a breather.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending