Stay updated with breaking news from Exxon valdez case. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
what they can't do legislatively or in the district courts. >> lori, i want to just tell our viewers -- if i can ask, i want to put up a graphic that compares the federal law with the indiana law because that's been a lot of the argument on behalf of the supporters of this bill is that it's a mirror of what's already in place in the federal law. it doesn't seem like that's actually the case. in the federal law, it's signed to protect rituals of religious minorities and in the indiana law, it's designed to protect the christian businesses. and in the federal law, the substantial burden to religious exercises. but in the indiana law, it's the burden or likely burden. i want to stop there only for a moment because i am very concerned about what a likely burden is. that seems so far-ranging that you get political cover for just about anything you want to do if you don't like gay people, period, and you don't want anything to do with them with your business. >> i'm going to disagree because
actually if you look at the connecticut rifra, it doesn't say substantial, it just says burden. i don't think the sky would fall in indiana if they keep this language. what you have to do when you go to court, you have to show there's a burden that it's really a serious one on your religious exercise, showing that it's likely in a legal case is pretty difficult. you think about the standard that it takes to win your case in court -- >> except, lori, what you've got here, the big distinction in indiana is you've got now it's business to business or business individuals, you've taken government out of the picture. and then the arkansas law went one step further, it also had a clause in it that proposed that the employer could impose restrictions or the burdens onto the employee. >> i need to jump in only because i do have a lot of other breaking news today. but i also want to mention that
decision, does he live or does he die for the crimes? yesterday, the defense rested after really less than two days after putting on four witnesses. that was it. but the real work is ahead. they are not disputing that tsarnaev was the bomber. they said it in openings, it's him. but they say his brother tamerlan was really the guilty one, the ringleader, that dzhokhar was just a follower. i want to bring in midwin charles and jennifer wrent. we've seen this before. you have a stinker of a case to start with. your job as the defense attorney is to save the man's life and nothing else. is that what you're seeing here and do they have a shot? >> it's what they're doing and i think they're doing the best they can. defense attorneys are handed a case and they work with what they have. what they've done with him is try to humanize him. that's always what you do -- >> that's such a great point. but you have a young man sitting in this courtroom who has not shed a tear, has not winced once
and the most well-known case would be the exxon valdez case. >> but the montreal convention, correct me if i'm wrong, will only cover you so long as you didn't do something really wrong. >> no, the montreal convention will make the airline liable for negligence, for willful misconduct or anything they do wrong. and there's really no limit to the damages the families can get if -- compensatory damages, damages for loss of support, loss of services, those sorts of things, if the airline did anything wrong. so here with the notice that the airline now says, which apparently is something contrary to what they said earlier, with the notice that they did know that he had to stop training and they did know that he suffered severe depression -- >> that doesn't expose them significantly? >> it exposes them -- their responsibility would be to fully compensate the families. >> i read in "the new york
training. after taking a break for several months, he was cleared to fly shortly after. >> all the safety nets we are so proud of here have not worked in this case. >> reporter: fred pleitgen, cnn, cologne, germany. >> i want to bring in justin green to talk about what it means for lufthansa's potential liability if that airline knew that andreas lubitz suffered from severe depression before the airline hired him. our conversations have morphed over the days as developments have become more evident. and this is a jaw-dropper. but what does it mean for the people who have been left behind? can they now go after punitive damages which maybe before might have been trickier? >> the montreal convention does not allow punitive damages, as it's interpreted here in the united states. and i don't believe it will allow for punitive damages for the families in germany or in france either. >> because they're big. punitive damages can be big? >> yes, punitive damages can be very large.
lawyer refused to discuss the case. can you tell us why she is accused of making these kind of threats, especially this family? >> i can't comment on an open case, thank you. >> reporter: the tsarnaev family first emigrated to the boston area back in 2002. the parents fleeing a troubled region of russia, were treated as legal residents and granted asylum, a status that opened the door for taxpayer-funded welfare. the state of massachusetts has confirmed the tsarnaevs received food stamps, public housing and other aid, on and off between 2002 and 2012. it was during this time that her brother, tamerlan, began his conversion to radical islam. then according to investigators, began filling his younger brother's head with a hatred towards the west. not much is known about the two tsarnaev daughter, ailina and bella, though they both lived together or near each other in new jersey. though muslim in appearance,
they have been disgusts. they've done all the things you expect as a prosecutor, home run, right? but now let me ask you this -- if these jurors hate dzhokhar tsarnaev so much, would they not prefer to see him rot for 60 years in a cell than maybe get an early four-year out like when timothy mcveigh said, no thanks, i don't want to sit around in the stinking cell? >> it's possible. you never really know what the jury is thinking when they're looking at this kind of case. one can say, yeah, let's have him sit in jail forever, that's better punishment than what mcveigh chose. but it's difficult to tell. >> even if he gets the death penalty, there will be appeals. so he will be sitting around for a long time. 12k3w >> not necessarily, timothy mcveigh signed his ticket to the chair in four years and to a lot of people, that wasn't much punishment for what he did. thank you both so much. you know how dangerous the
real liability for bp. the big liability will come from economic damages to property holders, shrimpers, fishermen to banks, to hotels and to small businesses onshore. in the exxon valdez case, exxon removed 8% of the oil. they spilled 11 million gallons and only removed 1 million. part of the reason is the company doesn't want to remove them. it wants to appear like it's trying to remove them. every barrel it removes cuts money, $100,000, from its bottom line. >> goodness. >> and it doesn't reduce commensurately the liability of the company by $100,000 onshore. probably not even $1. so bp's best bet at this point is to hide the oil, which it's been doing, using these dispersants, which are dangerous on their own, but are much more dangerous when you combine them with the oil. they force the oil to sink so the public doesn't see them.
Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - MSNBC - 20100702:05:10:00 vimarsana.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from vimarsana.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
nothing to reduce the onshore liability, which will be the real liability for bp. the big liability will come from economic damages to property holders, shrimpers, fishermen and small businesses onshore. in the exxon valdez case, exxon removed 8% of the oil. they spilled 11 million gallons and only removed one. part of the reason is the company doesn't want to remove them. it wants to appear like it's trying to remove them. every barrel it removes cuts money, $100,000, from its bottom line. and it doesn't reduce commensurately the liability of the company by $100,000 onshore. probably not even $1. so via bp's best bet at this point is to hide the oil, which it's been doing, using these dispersants, which are dangerous on their own, but are much more dangerous when you combine them with the oil. they force the oil to sink so