i don t agree. this this after a group of asian-american students filed complaint against harvard and the university of north carolinaa hill, alleging that ta they failed to employ racet neutral admissions practices. now the majority opinion delivered, chief justice john roberts said that any studenn t, quote, must be treat based on his or her experiencebs . an individual not on the basis of race, highlighting the importance of this case in a rare move. noarw justices clarence thomas d and sonia sotomayor also and actually read their opinions from the bench now, with justice thomas declaring, quote, at alnow l forms discrimination based on race, including so-called action, areo prohibited under the u.s. co. titutionhi now, a harvard did, in fact, release a statement following the decision acknowledging that the court ruled their admissions policies did not comply with the 14th amendment, the equal protection clause in the constitution and the civil rights act. but harvar la
They re all combining their efforts for this new prob their e and now requestingscri transcribed interviews with everyone involved from the u.s.beh in delaware to biden appointed u.s. attorneys in california in the ndc that allegedly now blocked chargess against zero experience. hunter biden, who s making exden who e, and plus the employees of the fbi, the secret service and the irs. they like me a lot. anywayth, john just interviewed one of the irs whistleblowers who pointe d to pretty clear signs of what is government interference in this investigation. in other words, a weaponized department justice that protected the entire bidenke a family. take a look. taking these to d.c. and to d the california u.s. attorney s officec d to the and am being d. it was obviously the injection s of political influence since, rh of course, those two u.s. attorneys wereos appointed
Have been reasonable is another question. i think what you have to look to is what is the maximum exposure. and i ve never seen an instance where you re luking at life in prison, where you get a deferred sentence and then you get to go out and work and earn an income. any double jeopardy issue here? it s sort of the defense epstein s team is putting forward here. i think there s another defense. double jeopardy i think you re going to have for a very significant reason. there was no adjudication of the matter. he bunt tried, convicted, it was deferred. to that extent you can exhume it, and you have other chargess that potentially weren t mixed up in this. i do see perhaps a contractual argument. to what extent should he have relied upon an agreement from the government saying we re not
I respectfully request that the house of representatives undertake a full inquiry under the chargess which have been made against me. after a most careful study my counsel has advised me it bars any prosecution of any kind against the president or vice president while he holds office. this is of course the key point. was the key point. in the fall of 1973, the sitting vice president of the united states spiro agnew was under activeival investigation for a lengthy list of bribery and extortion allegations. he never got to test a theory that a sitting president could not be indicted. he resigned about two weeks after he sent that letter begging to be impeached by the congress instead. but the story of why agnew resigned and the reason he was able to escape criminal charges, it is a fascinating story that s been sitting on the dusty shelves of history for a long time, but that story is episode