There is a lot of equality in the senate. Most of what we do is on unanimous consent. Anyone of the hundred of us could object and throw the place into a stupor. Every senator has some real clout. The majority leader has more clout in the ability to set the agenda and be recognized first, which gives you tactical advantages. But the house always says we are like a pyramid. At the top you have the speaker. The senate is more like a level playing field, with the majority leader has a little more advantage than anyone else. A strongwilled senator can frequently get his way, simply by objecting. You study the senate. He somewhat downplays the the leaders role. You said Party Leaders are more powerful today than a have been at any time in the Senate History . We take leadership for granted. We think leaders are the most powerful and essential leaders in the United States senate. If we did not have them, the senate could not function. Two beyond this that is probably , correct given how the
There is a lot of equality in the senate. Most of what we do is under unanimous consent. Any one of the hundred of us could object and throw the place into a stupor. Every senator has some real clout. The majority leader has more clout in the ability to set the agenda and be recognized first, which gives you some tactical advantages. But the house always says we are like a pyramid. At the top, you have the speaker. The senate is more like a level Playing Field with the majority leader having a little more advantage than anyone else. But a strongwilled senator can frequently get his weight simply by a objecting. Susan James Wallner, you study the senate. In that interview that senator somewhat did, he downplays the leaders roll. You said Party Leaders are more powerful today than have been at any time in the Senate History . James we take leadership for granted. We think leaders are the most powerful and essential leaders in the United States senate. And if we did not have them, the sen
Them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Very high standard. It is not that they were blameless. Its not that they were innocent. But we say we would rather let 100 guilty go free than convict one innocent man. We are loading it to a high standard. The other thing that lawyers argue, which the public sometimes has trouble with, is procedure. If you need to get that evidence if you did not get that evidence into the courtroom properly, then it cant come in. If you did not share information exculpatory information properly with defense, those are which can violations equally invalidate a verdict. And i am happy to argue both. That is kind of what we are going to go through. One word from last week. Last week was the allure of the white house tapes. I went through a bunch of them with you. Perhaps too fast. What i find fascinating about this because i transcribe them. I worked word for word for hours in tracing what they were saying and the points they were trying to make. Trying to underst
A sledgehammer what i think are the judicial and prosecutorial abuses that categorized the watergate coverup trial. I understand people were convicted. But you need to understand lawyers lawyers dont play fair. , they argue two things. They can argue, look that the , person did not do the crime, the person was not guilty. But usually in a political scandal, the argument is, there was not enough proof to find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Very high standard. It is not that they were blameless. Its not that they were innocent. We say, we would rather let 100 guilty go free than convict one innocent man. Properly, then it cant come in. If you did not share information properly with the defense, those procedural violations can equally invalidate a verdict. I am happy to argue both. So that is kind of what we are going to go through. One word from last week, last week was the allure of the white house tapes. I went through a bunch of them with you. Perhaps too fast. What i find fas
And prose. Before we begin id like to go over a few announcements, so please, for us to silenc first r cell phones and other devices, not only is it a courteous to the author but we are also on cspan to night. You do not want to be the person whose phone goes off on cspan. During the question and answer portion if you could come up to the microphone over here it is right here that way we can hear your questions and engage in a discussion afterwards. Our staff would greatly appreciate that the cofounder and ceo of jigsaw alphabet inc. As well as an adjunct senior fellow at the council of foreign relations. One of the great lessons of american politics that ive learned is the tale of two brothers Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, hairy truman and Lyndon Johnson sent to the presidency because of these unfortunate circumstances. The limited reading of the constitution, one of which Many Americans take for granted may not be the only way to handle succession. Walter isaacson, author of L