measured calm, really intellectually serious rigor. and, you know, very bob mueller thing to do, and i think if you imagine the kind of report that bob mueller would write on the spectrum from, you know, something highly argumentative and provocative, like for example the starr report versus something measured, stayed, and restrained like this, i think this is a very positive model for somebody like mueller. joyce, you re nodding your head. i think that s exactly right. it s not an argumentative document, it s really the grand jury that worked with federal prosecutors talking to the house of representatives, which in many ways acts like a grand jury body when it considers impeachment. and saying, as one fact finding body to another, here s what we found. was don t draw conclusions, you just do your work. thank you both. don t forget to check out our latest episode of why is this
evidence at trial as frustrating as that may be, we don t have it any of it. if she gets up there she can corroborate a bit and there are holes, and he gets up there and he is credible and he says i wasn t there and i didn t do it, what is the standard of judgment? how do you decide whether or not you vote up or down on this, laura? what do you think the standard is? this is why it s painfully obvious. although many lawyers sit on the senate judiciary committee, this is not a form of law. i m glad he notices the senate judicial process, i m glad he s mentioned the fact he s never seen anything like this before because the rules that apply to a court of law do not apply or protect the people here. the standard should be that the role of the judicial committee is not of a fact finding body like a jury. there are there for a political purpose to essentially advise
as frustrating as all of that can be. if she gets up there, and she s credible and she can corroborate a little bit, but not everything, and there are holes, he gets up there, and he is credible. and he says, i want there and i didn t do it. what is the standard of judgmentment. how do you decide whether or not you vote up or down on this. what do you think the standard is? this is why it s painfully obvious. former lawyers sit on the judiciary committee, this is not a court of law. i m glad that ken mentioned the notion of the senate judicial rules and process of at least a week as opposed to within a week. i m glad he mentioned the fact that he s never seen anything like this before, the rules that apply to a court of law do not apply or protect the people involved here. the standards should be to understand that the role of the judiciary committee is not as a fact finding body like a jury, they are there for a political purpose, to essentially advice and consent.
liberal decisions, as they re so-called, will actually remain and it will be every day he s not on the court is said to be a victory against those who are counting against conservative revolutions on the court. number one. number two, yes, the midterms are a factor and this reminds people painstakingly that although there are many lawyers who sit on the senate judiciary committee, it is not a court of law. their mission is not to be a fact finding body as evidenced by the fact that they think they can fast track justice. if this were something as trivial as justice kavanaugh often used the letter c, they would issue a supplemental background to look for criminal history, they would cross their is and to the their ts. if this was an issue of somebody alleging homicide, god forbid, they would dot their is and cross their ts. the fact that a sexual assault allegation does not find itself on that spectrum tells you it s
jury hasn t been seated yet but the judge has ruled they won t be able to hear about trayvon martin s past but george zimmerman s past they can hear about it. they are here to talk about it. what do you say, arthur? a lot of people say we should know about trayvon martin s drug use. we should know about fights. we should know about suspension. should that come into the case? i m going by the rules of evidence. the rules of evidence, look the essence of the jury is fact finding body. they are supposed to find out what happened. they are supposed to have evidence that is balanced and is challenged. that is why there is cross-examination is the true vehicle to learn the truth. anyone can go on and say