this isn t about two piece s of legislation. it s about the inflection point i mentioned earlier we are in our history, the world history. reporter: and it s an inflection point palooza. it s not just related on what he wants to do on his domestic agenda. that s the point he s going to make today when it comes to raising the debt ceiling. the president is going to be meeting with bank ceos and top business leaders to really use terms like potential recession, economic catastrophe if the u.s. doesn t act on this, and for the first time in its history ends up defaulting. he s going to continue to absolutely place the blame on republicans. we saw him do that earlier in the week. we can expect the same messaging. he s going to use these people he s meeting with to, again, reiterate the message. you see there bank ceos of citi, of jpmorgan, of bark of america, aarp and the realtors, the people who represent those who might be really, really impacted.
come. harry, i m going to rely on you a little heavy. you know him. i want to talk to you about the 2009 minnesota law review and also having served in both the george w. bush and h.w. bush but a much larger role in the george w. bush administration. that s right. the george w. bush administration, he s staff secretary. all piece s of paper go through him. he was technically in the george h.w. bush administration, but he was really a one-year fellowship in the solicitor general s office. of course, the solicitor general who appointed him, ken starr. as i m reading this 2009 minnesota law review, basically what it s saying is the president s job is so unique and so unusual, it s seemingly saying he s above the law or should not be indicted or even brought up for trial or criminal investigation. i think he is saying that. he s saying mea culpa. i hounded clinton to death ten
the family of odin lloyd with his mom and sisters and fiancee. are you satisfied with how the jury spent their 36 hours over sevenen days coming back with this determination? were you worried because it was taking so long? very satisfied with the verdict. i was not worried. the trial lasted over two months. a lot of exhibits. a lot of testimony to review. the you are jury seemed very attentive during the trial. they discharged their duty by giving careful review of all the evidence. renderered their verdict which was well based on the evidence. this was a very is circumstantial case people have are said you were able to prove no motive. how do you think you were able to get the jury to come to this verdict? what was the lynchpin of evidence for you? it was a combination of various piece s of evidence.