about how we should react to iran s bad act. it s about how we decide something this grave. and what we just saw was a perversion of the law. it almost resulted in something that country would have had to own as a whole and almost surely alone. think about that. he admits to us this president he was minutes away from the decision to bomb before he asked is anybody going to die here? the constitution didn t leave a decision like this to one person on purpose. and certainly we just saw why it s better to have all of congress involved with this president. so for love of country, for the love of safety of this country, congress do your damn job. and don t let this president make a call like this one on his own again. so, how good was the president s intelligence on iran? let s go into what the backing for the decision was.
convicted him in this case. cnn s jean casarez with us, as well. you have been there from day one of the earlier trial, even, jean and you were in the courtroom for much of this. was it a different feeling in that courtroom? reporter: there was a different feeling and i was in the courtroom for both trials. the different feeling in this one was that, you know, trials have momentums on both sides for the prosecution, for the defense. but in this trial i felt a continual momentum for the prosecution. it was just a feeling that i had in that courtroom. now, of course, the trial started out after the opening statements with dr. ziv who was a sexual assault expert and that was someone that talked about the character of a sexual assault victim. but then you started having the prior bad act witnesses. one after the other. and, you know, maybe that added
one word. so you just been watching the press conference there with montgomery county district attorney kevin steele a. couple of things that came up, the deposition of 2005 with bill cosby and related to andrea constand s allegations back then and the other talk was about the five other accusers who were allowed to testify. what do you think was more powerful here for that jury, bill cosby s own words being read to them where he talked about quaaludes and sex and drugs and alcohol? or was it these other witnesses, these prior bad act witnesses? i think it was both. i think that cosby s own words let the jury know that this was not dr. huxtable from the television show but a human being who was fatally flawed in many, many ways and then the combination of his own words sort of coupled with the
that s just him acting out. i think everybody got to see who he really is when each of those prior bad act witnesses got to testify. the guy the guy was an actor for a long time and it was an act it was an act. we got to see who he really was, so kevin, standing here before us you speak with emotion in your voice, especially in talking about andrea, you speak with tears in your eyes, describe emotion alley what this process has been like for you especially the critics who did not think it was retrying this case? look, this is this is about our duty as prosecutors and it s it s really not that complicated. it s about doing the right thing. we had to investigate a case, we
testimony of the women who found the same pattern of behavior as the main plaintiff in this case, ms. constand did i think was very instrumental in helping the jury understand what happened here. but i think what was very important from a trial strategy standpoint was the opening of the case with dr. ziv. remember, she is the forensic psychiatrist who talked about the rape myths, how women behave after being sexually assaulted. so they started the case by educating the jury. this is how people behave in the aftermath of these cases and it is not always consistent and it s not like television where they call the police immediately or things of that sort. so i think the combination of the introduction of forensic psychiatry with his own words and the prior bad act evidence leading up to andrea constand s testimony was that which