the extreme outside chance that somebody like haley could make a comeback. we will be talking about issues till september. tim miller, thank you for your time tonight my friend. that is our show for this evening, it is time for the last word with lawrence o donnell. welcome to the black tie edition of the last word. our first guest tonight andrew weissmann and i were both at the same black tie event, he as the audience is about to see dressed so much more elegantly than i was. lawrence, lawrence, do not sell yourself short. you look very i wore one of these, the black tie and threw away the tuxedo jacket and put on this, i m getting away with it sort of. i like the full black tie for the friday, not the friday night show for the next week show, i think we deserve it in these trying times, i think we deserve lawrence o donnell wait to see my first guess, you will demand in the future when andrew comes to the studio that he only show up and black tie, when you s
so, it s important for the viewers to understand that what he is trying to do now, the removal, is not the defense. for the removal, he is trying to say that because he was a federal official, which he was, and because he claims he was acting in that federal capacity, therefore, under the statute, he needs to be tried in federal court rather than the state court. so the bar for this part of is relatively low, a preponderance standard. he has to demonstrate he has a colorable federal defense. the federal defense is what you were saying. he would say since he was acting as chief of staff, supposedly everything he did was part of his job description and, therefore, he has the federal immunity. the first issue is whether he can get to federal court. if he succeeds in getting to federal court were he might be able to mount that defense. he faces the same charges, same
e. jean carroll alleges trump raped her in the 90s and defamed her when he denied the claims. this is a civil rather than a criminal case. help us understand the different thresholds for criminal versus civil. yeah. the civil threshold of proof is a lower standard of evidence. it s preponderance of the evidence, versus the highest standard we have which is beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal cases. i think the easiest analogy that comes to mind here if we remember the famous o.j. simpson murder trial where he was acquitted. that was the criminal trial. beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution failed to make that burden. but in the civil trial, he was found responsible under the preponderance standard. here ms. carroll is under the preponderance standard, not the reasonable doubt start, which is helpful. trump has a right not to
republican democrat prism right now and look at it, what are the facts? what s troubling is the democrats keep this mantra that it s not a trial and this is how you feel about the judge. they are acting as a fact finder. that s different from sitting on a committee voting on legislation. there is no element of fairness and decency coming in. what s your standard? even if you apply a clear preponderance standard it means you are about 75% certain of your decision. can you say that on this evidence? can you even say by preponderance it tips either way? i think the most he can possibly say that this is what we call an apple void, and equal, if you believe both sides equally. under those standards, is very hard to vote against kavanaugh unless you go against senator cavanaugh booker would you want a justice who
i take this away from the republican democrat prison and look at it just as, what are the facts sir or ma am? they are acting as a factng finder, there is an element of fairness and decency that has to comeer in. so what is your standard? so a clear preponderance standard means you re a 75% standard of your decision. you say that on this, could you even say bye preponderance that it tips either way? if you believe both sides equally, so it under any of those standards it s very hard to vote against kavanaugh unless you go with senator booker s idea. laura: one accusation, uncorroborated is enough to knock you off. the senator s kept asking