Stay updated with breaking news from Tarnishment. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
the tarnishment of the murdaugh name is fascinating. i think that is why the public has been so attached to this trial. and the prosecutor hitting home that no matter how small a town, how big a name is, no one is above justice. and i think the jury here really -- the dynamic of it, small town, the family, the jury had to take that into consideration. and now of course the sentencing today. we see alex murdaugh being brought to justice. >> there was a lot of conflicting testimony about cellphones and whether they were on or off and different ballistics testimony. i wondered if that would be enough for one person to find reasonable doubt. but it doesn't look like any of that conflicting technical information deterred the jury. >> i always say a trial is a dynamic beast. there is ups and downs for both
please. go. >> okay. >> some security measures will be set. >> how will i know that you made it through okay? >> i don't know. okay. >> okay. >> so gregory went into the witness protection program in the united states, and, you know, but as i said, two of his colleagues died unexpectedly, so those seem to be the fates. those seem to be the fates that may meet people who tell the truth in these cases. >> i mean, look, alexei navalny is about to go on trial and facing ten years in prison. what is his crime? essentially running for the presidency of russia. so i mean, this is par for the course, and i think what we're seeing at the olympics right now is very sad and the tarnishment of such a young career, obviously such an extraordinary
week in high school and threw up from drinking but to say, oh, about that sensitive stomach of mine to spicy foods, bull! >> he was shooting the moon. he was trying to get through this as unscathed as he should. to someone like brett kavanaugh who in his professional life has been so accomplished the notion that he would have to admit under oath that he possibly did drink too much or that he possibly behaved boorishly at time, you're right. there's a large segment of the population saying so what? he drank in high school. it's not that uncommon. some people do. some people do not. but if he was fibbing, it was so he could shoot the moon and try to avoid any further tarnishment of what he believed to be his integrity. so that's why people try to do that and a lot of times witnesses have just too much confidence in what is provable and what is not provable. and i think brett kavanaugh is learning that now. something that he should have
one misstep suddenly reflects tarnishment of their character and a loss of their leadership, i think is a little bit much. all that said, criticisms on policy are completely legitimate. questions as to whether or not decision-making is rational and right is fair game. and i think it is a good question to ask, where are we going on policy and what role are each of these key cabinet and national security figures playing? we've got to be careful about overplaying the caricature around the drama and political theater that we often talk about. >> juan makes a wise point but character is essential because the indictment from bob corker this week was of the president's character. the indictment on the floor of the senate by jeff flake was of the president's character. our head of state's character is being called into question by two men with nothing to lose. we have to assume that all they have left is the truth.
of what entitlement is on the table for same-sex couples as for opposite-sex couples. so the range of options that we have with those claims are, usually people frame it as 0 to 50. it's either no states or all 50 states. but there are actually three options in the middle. and i think that the court is most likely to do one of those threes. there are two ways to get to one state, a just california solution, we can talk about either of those. and there's an eight-state solution that says, there are currently eight states, will be nine when colorado does civil unions may 1st, but eight states that have everything but marriage. the argument there is, if you are giving all the rights and benefits and burdens of marriage to individuals but withholding only the word marriage, that's essentially a branding issue. it's a concern you'll tarnish the brand if you let gay people into the constitution. and that tarnishment claim is really is second class citizenship claim, so they could flip those and double the number of jurisdictions that have same-sex marriage. >> that would mean the states where same-sex marriage exists already would continue to have that, but it would not force
one is the freedom to marry claim, which is under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. the other is an equal protection claim, which says there has to be equal treatment, regardless of what entitlement is on the table for same-sex couples as for opposite-sex couples. so the range of options that we have with those claims are, usually people frame it as 0 to 50. it's either no states or all 50 states. but there are actually three options in the middle. and i think that the court is most likely to do one of those threes. there are two ways to get to one state, a just california solution, we can talk about either of those. and there's an eight-state solution that says, there are currently eight states, will be nine when colorado does civil unions may 1st, but eight states that have everything but marriage. the argument there is, if you are giving all the rights and benefits and burdens of marriage to individuals but withholding only the word marriage, that's essentially a branding issue. it's a concern you'll tarnish the brand if you let gay people into the constitution. and that tarnishment claim is really is second class citizenship claim, so they could flip those and double the number of jurisdictions that have same-sex marriage. >> that would mean the states where same-sex marriage exists already would continue to have that, but it would not force other states that don't have
table for same-sex couples as for opposite-sex couples. so the range of options that we have with those claims are, usually people frame it as 0 to 50. it's either no states or all 50 states. but there are actually three options in the middle. and i think that the court is most likely to do one of those threes. there are two ways to get to one state, a just california solution, we can talk about either of those. and there's an eight-state solution that says, there are currently eight states, will be nine when colorado does civil unions may 1st, but eight states that have everything but marriage. the argument there is, if you are giving all the rights and benefits and burdens of marriage to individuals but withholding only the word marriage, that's essentially a branding issue. it's a concern you'll tarnish the brand if you let gay people into the constitution. and that tarnishment claim is really is second class citizenship claim, so they could flip those and double the number of jurisdictions that have same-sex marriage. >> that would mean the states where same-sex marriage exists already would continue to have that, but it would not force other states that don't have
as a good soldier. and msnbc suggested that the optics are very good for the democrats because any questions raise abouted her will be interpreted as racist and i think so that's wrong. >> or saw as racist. and maureen dowd, and dan, if they had to vote for susan rice and nothing would make a big chunk of the chatting class in the media in president obama's second term to be sort of light critics, some detachment and ironic distance and meanwhile the agenda goes forward and tarnishment will not stop her being the next secretary of state. >> if the press did their job there would be different questions. >> if they did, that's a huge "if." . >> the former head of the ceo david petraeus, his belief that the attacks were carried out and planned as terrorism attacks, and then came his
as a good soldier. and msnbc suggested that the optics are very good for the democrats because any questions raise abouted her will be interpreted as racist and i think so that's wrong. >> or saw as racist. and maureen dowd, and dan, if they had to vote for susan rice and nothing would make a big chunk of the chatting class in the media in president obama's second term to be sort of light critics, some detachment and ironic distance and meanwhile the agenda goes forward and tarnishment will not stop her being the next secretary of state. >> if the press did their job there would be different questions. >> if they did, that's a huge "if." . >> the former head of the ceo david petraeus, his belief that the attacks were carried out and planned as terrorism attacks, and then came his
as a good soldier. and msnbc suggested that the optics are very good for the democrats because any questions raise abouted her will be interpreted as racist and i think so that's wrong. >> or saw as racist. and maureen dowd, and dan, if they had to vote for susan rice and nothing would make a big chunk of the chatting class in the media in president obama's second term to be sort of light critics, some detachment and ironic distance and meanwhile the agenda goes forward and tarnishment will not stop her being the next secretary of state. >> if the press did their job there would be different questions. >> if they did, that's a huge "if." . >> the former head of the ceo david petraeus, his belief that the attacks were carried out and planned as terrorism attacks, and then came his