Bipartisan policy center. Thank you for joining us with the release of the new book it is called white house and tevi troy is the author for commentary on the book. Let me start by introducing our guest and we are looking forward to having some of you ask questions as well. And then to be a person of action to be a scholar tevi troy hands work in many places to several departments and the department of labor but also at the white house also an accomplished author who has written in addition to this piece on the white house with intellectuals as well as the use of social media presence. I hope you will listen but also think about buying the book fight house. We have fourth of july and then to learn more about the white house. A person a scholarly refute someone his work most recently in the white house and the state department of the advisory and other roles and the director of politics and strategy at Carnegie Mellon university. There she has studied the presently written books on reag
Them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Very high standard. It is not that they were blameless. Its not that they were innocent. But we say we would rather let 100 guilty go free than convict one innocent man. We are loading it to a high standard. The other thing that lawyers argue, which the public sometimes has trouble with, is procedure. If you need to get that evidence if you did not get that evidence into the courtroom properly, then it cant come in. If you did not share information exculpatory information properly with defense, those are which can violations equally invalidate a verdict. And i am 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 tapes. I went through a bunch of them with you. Perhaps too fast. What i find fascinating about this because i transcribe them. I worked word for word for hours in tracing what they were saying and the points they were trying to make. Trying to underst
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
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