One culture is represented by the people on this stage who are scholars associated with the Miller Center at the university of virginia and to study the presidency who study the presidency, and expressed in written word. The other culture in this room is pat oliphant. [applause] please greet pat oliphant. Even more so by the work of pat, which you will see displayed on this screen. The culture he represents is not sort of broad gauge and long but highly specific. Prospective over the course of more than 60 years as a cartoonist producing more than 10,000 individual cartoons five days a week for the denver post for several years, for the washington star for several years, and then he became the first 20thcentury cartoonist to work independently. That is how popular his work was. It was syndicated through newspapers across the country out of his studio. So a specific, daily comment on events as they were occurring. Far from being balanced, they were opinionated. That was part of their vi
Covered the coverup trial. I understand people were convicted. But you need to understand that lawyers, lawyers donts play fair. They argue two things. They can argue, look, the person didnt do the crime. The person wasnt guilty. But usually in a political scandal the argument is there wasnt enough proof to find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Very high standard. Its not theyre blameless, its not theyre innocent. But we say wed rather let 100 guilty go free than convict one innocent man. So were were loading it to a very high standard. The other thing that lawyers argue, which the public sometimes has trouble with, is procedure. If you didnt get that evidence into the courtroom properly, then it cant come in. If you didnt share exculpatory information properly with defense, those are procedural violations which can equally invalidate a verdict. And im happy to argue both. So, thats thats kind of what were going to go through. One word from last week. Last week was the allure of
Lawyers, lawyers donts play fair. They argue two things. They can argue, look, the person didnt do the crime. The person wasnt guilty. But usually in a political scandal the argument is there wasnt enough proof to find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Very high standard. Its not theyre blameless, its not theyre innocent. But we say wed rather let 100 guilty go free than convict one innocent man. So were were loading it to a very high standard. The other thing that lawyers argue, which the public sometimes has trouble with, is procedure. If you didnt get that evidence into the courtroom properly, then it cant come in. If you didnt share exculpatory information properly with defense, those are procedural violations which can equally invalidate a verdict. And im happy to argue both. So, thats thats kind of what were going to go through. One word from last week. Last week was the allure of the white house tapes. And i went through a bunch of them with you, perhaps too fast. What i fi
Listening to chris hogan and yak is so mart so thats momma mcdowell summary of the panel. Futures are pointing higher this morning as earning season really pix up steam. Dow components United Technology travelers cocacola and visa all report Quarterly Results today along with Lockheed Martin and snapchat. 17 of the s p 500 have reported Second Quarter results 77 beating their earnings per share. Jackie what are you watching this morning in terms of the big movers here . Well overall were seeing good fir for earnings and thats when investors cared about going into this earning season. Youre seeing companies that are beating on ets and not hearing commentary oh we have problems in china thats what everyone was looking for. And youre also not seeing anybody really give any cuts on guidance Going Forward as well. And this was really important to support the rally that were seeing in the markets so thats investors know it is not all fed driven, of course, this week is going to be a really b
You need to understand lawyers, lawyers do not play fair they argue two things. They can argue look, the person did not do the crime, the person was not guilty. Usually in a political scandal, the argument is that there wasnt enough proof to find them guilty belonged beyond a reasonable doubt, its not that they were blameless, its not that they were innocent. But you know we say, we would rather let 100 guilty go free, then convict one innocent man. So we are loading it to a very high standard. The thing that lawyers argue with the public sometimes and has trouble with this procedure. If you didnt get that evidence into the courtroom properly. Then it cant come in. If you didnt share the scope information properly with the defense, those are procedural violations which can equally invalidate a verdict. And im 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 tape and i went through a bunch of them