The georgia case is for a lot of these we need translators, former prosecutors. What fani willis charged was the clearest thing we all saw with our own eyes. And i had this conversation in the 8 00 hour. What trump told his voters his first year as president in 2017 from a podium was dont believe what you see, dont believe what you hear, only believe me. And what fani willis indicted yesterday just blows that out of the water. In state court we could see with our own eyes. And my understanding again, youre the lawyer in these conversations was that if this, then that. So if this criminal enterprise with us corrupt in nature and all in pursuance of a crime, then all of these acts were a part of it and all these people were a part of it. From the outside having worked in politics, thats what it looked like to me. So, to read that narrative is what made that indictment, the fourth in just a few short months, different from the others. I agree. I think you put that very well. Sometimes we
Are nits the be-all and end-all of television specs? Or is it just one more overused selling point? We break it down in a full explainer of TV brightness.
level. we ve got a lot of details later tonight. on a big picture level, what do you think it meant for americans to begin to see the process transparently, to understand that human beings handled the presentation of evidence, that the grand jury held its vote, that it was all on the up and up, and that now this former president and many of his lawyers and allies are being treated as racketeering defendants? i think it s wonderful. we talked about this before, ari, where part of this whole exercise needs to be about transparency and accountability. i think it s a wonderful thing the federal courts don t have cameras in the courtroom. but there needs to be an exception in this case. what transpired last night highlights the reasons for that, to show people and i think it s most important this case that people see not only the process, but they also understand the facts. you and i have talked about this before facts matter, and i think part of this whole equation is the process a
ust fenced, but of course, as we have just discussed, that was only relevant just discussed, that was only relevant up to 2012, at which point in tinre, relevant up to 2012, at which point in time, public health was no longer funded in time, public health was no longer funded through the department of health funded through the department of health. do you accept, mr cameron, that the health. do you accept, mr cameron, that the health budgets over the time of that the health budgets over the time of your government were inadequate, and led to a depletion inadequate, and led to a depletion in its inadequate, and led to a depletion in its ability to provide an adequate service? | in its ability to provide an adequate service?- in its ability to provide an adequate service? i don t accept that. neither adequate service? i don t accept that. neither on adequate service? i don t accept that. neither on a adequate service? i don t accept that. neither on a big adequate se
continue, because the constitution is neutral, that this court should be scrupulously neutral on the question of abortion. neither pro-choice nor pro-life. but because they say the constitution doesn t give us the authority, we should leave it to the states and we should be scrupulously neutral on the question, and that they are saying here, i think, that we should return to a position of neutrality on that contentious social issue rather than continuing to pick sides on that issue. so i think that s, at a big picture level, their argument. want to give you a chance to respond to that. yes, a few points if i may. first, of course those very same arguments were made in kc and the court rejected them, saying that philosophical disagreements can t be revolve in the a way a woman has no choice in the matter and second i don t think it would be a neutral position. the constitution provides a