Stay updated with breaking news from Defense hat. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
And i guarantee you ll find thousands of women jumping out. i mean, you know, i have to say, again, putting on my white-collar criminal defense hat, can you imagine what emmitt flood, the president s attorney from the distinguished williams & connolly law firm, the premier trial law firm in the united states, started by edward bennett williams, who represented adam clayton powell, the washington post, michael milton, williams & connolly, i am not a potted plant testimony before congress representing oliver north is thinking? rudy giuliani is making his defense of the president absolutely impossible. he puts his foot in his mouth every single day. he s making admissions that will be admissible in court. it is a nightmare. i was about to give president some advice and say get giuliani off your team but it will ....
Admissible? it s history that has this type of ruling in the past. gang tattoos are allowed inside there is already this legal president as exists. in this case, the tattoos were after the killings. the timing is critically important. it s extremely important. it s not this. it s much more than any prejudice because of the fact that these tattoos were done after the killing. put your defense hat on. the defense argued to the judge that it s speculative. tattoos can have a variety of meeting. the judge did not buy it and he rejected the claim admissible. the judge make the right decision? i don t. i think the judge made the mistake and the prosecutor made ....
Violence or would an officer fear less for his life because he s armed and trained? how do you depart that on the 12 people? the magic word you said is training. what we re going to see here is officers are trained basically that at any time, anyone could be a threat. there are even studies out that demonstrate suspects laying on the ground have a potential to conceal weapons. i m not saying based on this video. i think this video is very problematic for this defendant. putting on my defense hat, the defense here is going to, number one, look at all the videos, as we ve already seen, and say based on that, there is an incredible realistic threat. again, as joey said, the supreme court will give sort of the benefit of the doubt to officers and not look at the actions in hindsight but what was available to them in terms of information at the moment. that, plus the fact that officers are trained that almost anything can become a threat instantly very quickly. ....
Treaty with zimbabwe since 2000. it s called dual criminality. if it s a crime there and a crime here, that can be grounds to justify the extradition and they make the request, the department of state at their discretion gives it to the u.s. attorneys and they initiate the proceedings and the hearing that is then held in a district court is just to determine it s like a probable cause hearing in criminal law. it s just to determine if there s probable cause that this crime has been committed and that it has that dual criminality. in crimes like murder i would hope that s illegal in all countries. but in a case like this if i were wearing the defense hat, there really isn t an analogy between lion hunting laws and the laws that we have about hunting here. although that s an argument given the permissive standard that would likely fail at the district court. final question to you, jeff just in terms of the outrage, i was just in africa two weeks ago ....
This admission? you know toure i d glad you asked me this. this is interesting because holly madison, released the book against her tell-all of hugh hefner mentioned this. that quaaludes were in the 70s and 80s of thigh openers. not my words, toure. afternoon tv. so in that context, in the 70s and 80s and how they were used, now you could see how maybe he could say, well everybody was doing quaaludes and people had them and did sex and just the way that it is. okay? sounds crazy but, you know i m using my defense hat here. so a lot of people are putting the spin on it he s admitting something but if you read the words, what is he admitting to? offered them? you would have counseled him to say yes to this? this actually was the issue in the deposition itself. next question is did you knowingly or did they know that they were doing the quaaludes? which he never answered. let s ask you about that. the plaintiff s attorney asked ....