Them gavel to gavel, but my perception, and i think the perception of many were those very concerns in those cases. But i think whats far more important is to survey the people that were involved in a particular case, the lawyers, the witnesses, i mean, the things that our pilot is going to do. Their perceptions, i think, are much more compelling and persuasive than the perceptions of somebody who is watching it on tv, who doesnt know all the facts, who doesnt know what that witness testified to in a deposition and whether theyre shading their testimony now when theyre in front of television camera. We may not. Viewers may not know that but the parties involved on whose bhaf your speaking, the concerns of the parties involved, certainly we would have these are issues that would have come up time and time again, wouldnt they . As we televise trials all over the country, many of them high profile . All i can tell you, sir, is i think its important to survey people. Im not aware in the st
2010. Before that, audio from one term generally wasnt available until the beginning of the next term and so i was wondering, whats your view on the impact of having these audio recordings available now publicly within the same week of the argument and has there been an improvement in Public Access . Well, it certainly a good first step, but when were talking about the age of the internet, when someone can tweet something and millions of people can see it and read it and share it seconds after its been sent, especially in news when youre talking about something well release it that week. I mean, in the news business, a week later is really yesterdays news. So, for the people that really rl interested and there are a surprising amount of them that whether theyre shutins or just people interested in the way that we conduct ourselves in the judiciary, i think at least having simultaneous broadcast of the audio might be a good first start. I just have a problem again with the audio only. N
He doesnt get to do that. Okay. Now his own dhs secretary, jay johns Johns Johnson stated it to enforce a duly enacted constitutional law thats beyond simple prosecutorial discretion. I think that the a least three of our witnesses believe the president has crossed that line. Could you be more specific and let me start with mr. Dupree. Thank you. I think secretary johnson is correct when he says there is a line. I think in this case the president not only crossed the line but that line is far, far, far in the distance. Thats kind of like the line he drew on syria. Right . I think that is an apt analogy. Thank you. I dont know that the constitution requires a certain number of people beyond which he could not grant deferred action to. I dont think the constitution speaks to that degree my time is limited. Im just going to quote very quickly from the opinion quoted by members of this committee and some of the witnesses and that is the cheney opinion. This is the part thats conveniently i
Im supposed to be at a Foreign Relations meeting. Can i go ahead . You go first. Then well give Opening Statements. I thank you mr. Chairman and Ranking Member grassly. I thank you for letting me testify and thank you for making this hearing happen. Senator bloomingthales advocating for consumers valuable partner to work with on this issue in the area rules and regulations far often leave consumers holding the short end of the stick. Im here to discuss sports blackouts and to explain why the continued use of policies failed to serve the interest of consumers, in this case loyal sports fans. I will truncate my Opening Statement just to say the simple fact is the rules as they are today only serve to benefit Sports Leagues and member teams at the expense of hardworking fan who is support them so loyally through money, time, passion. Just last year during the nfl wildcard playoffs, fans of the cincinnati bengals, indianapolis colts, Green Bay Packers came close to experiencing blackouts w
From the governments in central and eastern europe. Yeah. In particular the Czech Republic, slovakia, hungary. The defense minister of the Czech Republic recently and the president or sorry the Prime Minister of slovakia both said that stationing nato troops on inner territory would be akin or remind them of the warsaw pacts invasion of 1968. This is a remarkable thing to say. Both of these countries are nato members. Both of those men are old enough to remember what the actual warsaw pact invasion was like. You have hungary, which is a complete separate story. We could have a whole days panel worth about that country. But these are who would have i think in general the american and Foreign Policy community we figure this part of the world was done. You know, they were liberated from communism. They have liberal democracies now. Theyre set, theyre finished. Lets move on to sexier topics in asia and the middle east pip think what the ukraine crisis has exposed is just how real shallow t