they came out and said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. only an unreasonable prosecutor would bring this charge against the former president. the new york times surveyed legal analysts and found according to their research, the new york da s office in manhattan has never brought a charge on a federal campaign violation before. this would be unprecedented. you have to think it would only happen because of the last name of the person they are going after. as a former federal and criminal attorney this is important for viewers to understand. number one to that point that was the underlying charge upon which this was elevated to a felony. that s why in part it was so filmsy, yet untested in these waters. over 98% of grand jury convenes results in an indictment. if it does not, it absolutely illustrates what you just said, which is the filmsy nature of this presentation by the prosecution. how utterly preposterous.
journalists. i don t understand why they think that this was going to give them any good p.r. it s absolutely a farce on its face. it s ridiculous. and on top of that if you look at the actual article that cpj put up as to why they believe this, their arguments are entirely filmsy. they say because trump and a bunch of other western leaders don t do enough than somehow it s their fault that journalists are being murdered in the world. it s flimsy arguments that don t hold water. steve: you know what, katie, you said you didn t think about they would abou bad pr. they will get good pr from reporters who don t like donald trump. those reporters are doing a disservice to their job for fighting for real truth if they don t step back and look at this and say you know what? this is not okay. it s a disservice to our industry and you should absolutely. cpj should be ashamed for themselves for trying to do
an ruse to get the trump surveillance. in other words, there was an orchestrated effort to surveil candidate trump and president-elect trump and his transition team and unmask them, and in the case of general flynn, leak the intelligence. is there any other plausible theory, hypothesis you have short of that? the veneer of incidental coverage here seems filmsy. sources i have talked to say that doesn t matter. they say it was incidental. makes it sound like it was nothing. you still have to go through the normal protocol in order to unmask these individuals. you can t do it in pick and choose and try to troll the raw data and the raw files for any more sell you think might implicate trump or any associates in the future. again, when you are an out going administration after a really tough election battle and the partisanship and the rancor and
the people does not make the reconciling of political differences any smoother. with the lifting of a ban of political organizations like the anc and the release of political prisoners such as mandela, the government of south africa kb t commits itself to change and a new chorus of the country must be charted. they set out in a filmsy little rowboat to cross this ocean, and there was no turning back. reporter: the various political factions must go about the difficult task of dismanltsidismanlts i dismantling the rule of apartheid and incorporating all citizens into the process. throughout the negotiating process, it was almost a touch and go situation when it could quite easily have crumbled. reporter: mandela s main counterpart in the negotiations is f.w. de klerk. the relationship was never a
are charging is you are being discriminated against because of your race she is while. the word she used in the deposition, other lawsuit can t repeat on air. the n word. that would be towards a black person. bill: what did the judge say? judge said part of your lawsuit is out of here because you are white. not because the claim isn t necessarily true that you have been discriminated against. said paula deen was doing racist things. that person was white. yes. because the person was white, the judge says you can t accuse. correct. filmsy, isn t it? not making a decision on the merits, he is saying you have good standing. you are white. you have no standing. bill: only say if there is a racist act if you are the color that is being injured by the racist act? word was the n word. the judge still left the sexual discrimination suited and harassment and hostile work environment. that s not in there. to be fair this did threaten i will expose you publicly if you do