That the president has been acid wously denying for more than a year now, that there was a in fact a major russian operation to interfere in the 2016 u. S. Election. And, you know, the Intelligence Community has been saying for a year now that they have high confidence that that is the case. And here you have the u. S. Department of justice and a grant Ju Grand Jury saying they can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, using admissible evidence. And that, you know, is a Rod Rosenstein today was extremely careful not to offend the president and make sure that no americans were witting participants in this plot. But that is a remarkable factual repudiation of the entire
he was very careful to stay within what is alleged in the indictment. But he did make a point on several occasions of saying that no americans are accused of participation in this. And i do think that was probably aimed at the president in a fashion that allows the president at least until such a time as
dispassionate he was about everything. you just have this idea of this presence of an adult in the room. that is what kept everything so in control. if that is what trump is shaping against. he is an adult who was extraordinarily unfair, even issuing objections ahead of the trump legal team and sustaining them on his behalf. his flashpoints of anger were against todd blanche in the opening statements, against robert costello as the defenses witness. you can kind of count them on hand. this idea that this is a courtroom. it is a place where fact, law, and the respect for the rule of law matters. he could put aside the attacks on him, the jurors, his family,
tell us about the investigation and how that would work. the pilot of the passenger airliner seems to have escaped with the passengers, so that information will be critical for finding out what happens and the impressions before this happened? it will give additional information because will give additional information because in many tragic accidents where because in many tragic accidents where there is loss of life including the crew, investigators have including the crew, investigators have to including the crew, investigators have to rely on tapes, whether they are audio have to rely on tapes, whether they are audio tapes of flight crew on the aeroplane and air traffic control the aeroplane and air traffic control and look at data in terms of how the control and look at data in terms of how the aircraft was performing, any messages how the aircraft was performing, any messages transmitted, any evidence of anything untoward. so all of that, of anything untoward. so a
shirked as you have said, we ve never shirked away from dispassionate debates shirked away from dispassionate debates and also that has been formalised in the sense of these types formalised in the sense of these types of formalised in the sense of these types of commissions. that was a bunch types of commissions. that was a bunch of types of commissions. that was a bunch of international experts who laid out bunch of international experts who laid out the plans in terms of what we need laid out the plans in terms of what we need to laid out the plans in terms of what we need to do about workforce, what we need to do about workforce, what we need we need to do about workforce, what we need to we need to do about workforce, what we need to do about workforce, what we need to do about workforce, what we need to do about use of technology, having a more joined up system, technology, having a more joined up system, and it did involve the proposal system, and it did invo
to protect news organizations from exposing the flaws and unethical violations of public figures. if you didn t have the first amendment, the government and supreme court would not have it published. people should remember that and value that that s why it s important we have it. it s dispassionate. it doesn t get ahead of where the facts brought us today it s not without a consequence it s not without a consequence that the justices have made very clear they feel very sad about that is the collapsing public faith in the court 75% of the americans trusted it in 2000. in 2022, 47% there s no all institutions are facing headwinds but there s no ininstitution in american life that has plunged that much min 22 years. i think the cause is the perception that the supreme court is motivated by politics