there here however he s still at the time of the particular conduct was the president and it s going to be a balancing act for any court to evaluate whether it was such a from lic d detour. if what he was doing is self-preservation in terms of his power, that s a very different analysis for a judge to look at to see if a president or former president should have those benefits. speaking of liability, laura just talked about that. what do you think about this idea of liability and the idea they want to turn that it could become the first amendment issue? well, that s a great question, don. this is a novel case from my estimation. i m not the lawyer on the panel but it s a novel case and look at the facts, the defense will be these are first amendment issues here and i think that s a real problem but we have to step
e, p of def co seun ss e, c majo ty l der tanatoher anf arry reidcond hwasn jo l r reprtoenti hisntirpart in ry th idhous hs here whahe sd. prtiisirrtn thus reha s u reitti the in e ovalfficand u ha t majorety ltider heere,n youave alic d ha thpres tent ere d t jo l r whe,e hoe,oue thest st e t h hom whfielho u kn somhingboutport sand me homeld. dielyou el sknewhaomngutrt d overelmea lile d.t? diisn u that s haugh? eru hameonlylieen eakefor a fewn onthat now. e nuersh?re hadownlyn ker wth the esidw.t ist hisnus wnsk. put heire idis panis o ihe . mo ing e saut wayir do. aniat t ore a i we d a mog saeryay. t a pote, rme a ynvertion and en tugh po it , s tee ainse, iereveronelt d tht t nserlt ovwheld. i ver lt uncoortae. ovknowel and i kr w whe i d t be a wha hado fit focota ownd kwhi t a goahawasoadfifo g asuch f teaand oas a m ghs fh fhe ea d amicaneoplas a m fuld. and any amopleanhinkple d. so peoe di t. d. ndy lotle onke peoen t teasoeodi.arty t gog toush fot o eoe. tea ty sh go lim