revisit all of these claims again in open court. >> but the grand jury's decision not to indict clearly, i mean, i'm asking has some weight on future federal judiciary processes. >>well this one especially has not only some weight but some material. that was in the public domain which we heard over and over is unusual. a potential jury could be watching your show could be reading about this in the paper and have its own ideas. having said that it doesn't preclude anything. when we talk about somebody having a full trial and they can't be retried on the same claims, double jeopardy. that's not the case here. i don't think it's going to happen, to be clear. nothing about a nonindictment prevents a prosecutor from revisiting and trying to get another indictment on the same charge with whatever evidence they have. it's certainly matters in the court of public opinion as people have been discussing all thanksgiving weekend, i'm sure. it doesn't preclude these other actions from commencing if the
oil planes or perhaps hydraulic fluid. they tested it. it is not related to the airliner. and probably a little bit of disappointment that it was not related but they really didn't hold out a whole lot of hope that it would be conclusive, bill. >> and how about the status of the air search? >> it is interesting, angus houston, the man heading up this search. it was interesting he saw the search winding down in the next few days. well, it continues, there is another pace. with planes up there, and in fact we have a crew on one of them. and we'll get more on the report from miguel marquez about that flight. and crews had searched before where you remember a chinese vessel reported a ping which turned out to be nothing. but they're going down there and re-visiting that particular area because of the sea patterns and the way the currents have moved, they have shut that down.
but if you look at how angus houston is hijacking tandling t situation, it is no conclusion, just the facts. >> yes, just the facts. the aerial search are for the missing debris is winding down. it is able to conclude the search without finding any debris, is that possible? >> well, it is an interesting comment, don, they did say it would wind down over the last few days. in fact they designated an area they were re-visiting which i last looked at by the end of march. they have new drift and current information. new analysis, that is where they're not searching, which is some 600 miles southwest of where they had been looking for debris. and so it is basically due west of perth. and it is about one and a half thousand miles west of perth. so there is no sign at this
advisers are considering? >> well, i think we're going to -- i'm sure we are already -- have very detailed discussions with nato about what our response ought to be. whether there ought to be a naval response, whether there ought to be a reposition of troops, repositioning of troops within some of the neighboring countries, the nato members that surround the ukraine. that's not something that putin would like to see. and that in and of itself a revisiting of missile defense. even discussions that would open up these possibilities. maybe renewed interest in ukraine's ultimate membership in nato. there are a number of things that can be explored. just the exploring of which will put some pressure on putin. but you're right. it has to be calibrated. we don't want to do things that would be so over the top that we would provoke putin to do more militarily. but i do think we have to show a strong front. putin respects strength. and the reality as much as we want to work with russia, vis-a-vis syria, iran, et
out, had fun, listened to rap music, he could have had a hoodie on, a little white boy would have had a hoodie on, and it would have been all good until he got shot, and then they would say, he must have been doing something wrong. >> i think there are a lot of lessons to learn from the trayvon martin trial, but there are some really practical implications as well. and regardless of the outcome, revisiting the stand your ground laws, a re-examination of the incarceration rate and incarceration culture in and around the african-american community, the way black men are targeted, and there is an acceptance of black man on street goes to jail doing something violent. that is a given. we need to re-examine that trope in our society. getting to a racially harmonious future is going to require very practical steps. >> it's not just about what's in our hearts, it's about what's in our lawbooks. we'll talk more about this case. also later in the show, civil rights legend myrlie evers is going to join us. stay with us. a lot more from the essence festival, next.
however, i don't disagree that a compromised verdict is something the jury might be looking at, and this case may be a manslaughter case. >> right. >> i interviewed sybrina fulton a few months ago and she wanted a fair hearing of the facts and a revisiting of the law. and as long as she gets that, i think she will be at peace. >> let's turn to the case you you brought up last time, your friend rhonda lee strangled and found floating in a michigan lake. you haven update on this? >> yeah, i'm pleased to tell you the oakland police department did in fact arrest and has now arraigned bobby lite lor, a 42-year-old pontiac map. he's been charged with first degree murder, felony murder, and criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. these crimes can get him life in prison without the possibility of parole.
the original policy in place does make a distinction but it's not capricious. there are concerns about putting adult lungs into children may not be as effective. there are concerns about the expertise of being able to carry out pediatric lung transplants to carry it out in these kinds of case which is require lung reductions and does require a great deal of expertise. as evidence accumulates suggesting that maybe this works, what tends to happen is there is a revisiting of the policy, which seems entirely appropriate. there's a lot of deliberation. then people do often make changes, often changes the way organs get allocated. we just allocated the way -- che way we allocate kidneys. it's a scarce resource. >> her family says under the current policy children younger than 12 are offered pediatric organs that match their size and age and sicker chirp have priority, but they are prevented from receiving adult organs until they have been offered to
mitt romney talked at a fundraiser about the shooting. here is what he had to say about it. there will be a natural reaction to say what can be done about it? how can we prevent this? what can government do? in your mind, is that a leap or even appropriate tying his small government argument to a mass shooting. >> i think it's an appropriate time. it's ongoing appropriate time certainly after something like this to talk about what could have been done to prevent it. i don't think we should label that as politics so much as a revisiting of policy. in this case as you pointed out in the last segment, i go through this myself, buying sudafed d is harder -- they track it very carefully, yet this man was able to purchase guns and ammunition without bells going off. the other thing that concerns me when the conservative rhetoric focuses on smaller government and trying to protect rights. the hypocrisy, what about
debate, more ideas would break loose, because the third party person would be a rogue and not so scripted and make for more interesting dialogue. >> well, for the sake of the argument, the money is driving out the third party candidates and it is going on the list of unintended on the citizens united marks is that whether facts have been changed or come to be seen so differently, and earlier in the year justice ginsberg issued a snippet opinion to justice breyer saying some unintended consequences here that may affect citizens united and goes with shadowy billionaires as room for modifying the contour of the campaign. >> and i love it, sugar daddies and buddy roemer might get us a revisiting of the citizens united issue. and thank you, panel.
republicans say all the time, there's been no budget in a thousand days. what they aren't telling you is instead of a budget resolution last year we did an actual budget law and as you know, a law is stronger than any resolution. so last year, instead of a budget resolution, we did the budget control act that not only set a budget for the next two years, but set spending caps for ten years, saving $900 billion in addition, set in place see quester that's going to have additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts for 2 trillion in the budget control act, something passed instead of a budget resolution. i think our colleagues are rewriting history here. >> set that aside. would you like to see a revisiting of either simpson-bowles or rivlin domenici or something coming out of the gaeng of six plus two? should the white house and leaders of both parties sit down