branches. should supreme court justices be held to the same standard as any and all other public servants? the senate judiciary committee held a hearing on the ethical standards or lack thereof for supreme court justices a topic that has come up in light of new reporting on repeated failures by justices to disclose details of lavish vacations, travel, gifts, even real estate transactions, testifying on behalf of democrats, a former federal judge and group of legal experts, guests invited by republicans included a former attorney general. more notable than who testified was who did not. chief justice john roberts declined an invitation from the committee, something dick durbin brought up at the start of today s hearing. in his letter last week the chief justice sent a statement of ethics principles and practices. it was a document that was attacheded to his letter. it is an extraordinary document. not in a good way. it makes clear while the justices are fine with consulting
hi there, everyone. it s 4:00 in new york. a new chapter in the house gop s plan to govern for fox news and fox news only began today. the committee set up for one purpose only, that is to fuel the right s favorite conspiracy theory, but somehow, the deep state, is out to protect democrats and persecute conservatives and the disgraced ex-president and his allies. the so-called select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government held its very first hearing today. republicans invited a panel that included senator chuck grassley, who once said this, that the fbi was, quote, corrupted to its core. senator ron johnson, who has never met a conspiracy he didn t really like a lot. and former congresswoman and current fox news regular tulsi gabbard. here s just some of what they had to say. it s clear to me that the justice department and the fbi are suffering from a political infection that, if it s not defeated, will cause the american people no longer to trust thes
becomes one of fear and devastating violence and tragedy. the latest in the never-ending epidemic of gun violence in america, the 33rd mass shooting to happen so far this year, at least 11 people were killed at a lunar new year celebration at a billion room in monterey park, california. it is a predominantly asian american suburb of los angeles. the deceased are all in their 50s, 60s, and 70s. officials say that the shooter, 72-year-old asian male, attempted a second attack at another ballroom nearby. that attack was stopped by two patrons. here s how one of them describes what happened. i lunged at him with both my hands, grabbed the weapon, and we had a struggle. we struggled into the lobby, trying to get this gun away from each other. he was hitting me across the face, bashing the back of my head. i was trying to use my elbows to separate the gun away from him, create some distance. finally, at one point, i was able to pull the gun away from him, shove him aside, create
as a huge surprise given the well-established history inside trump world of pressuring potential witnesses in key investigations. washington post lays it out like this, quote. evidence across multiple state, federal and congressional investigations points to a similar pattern. trump and his close allies privately shower potential witnesses with flattery and attention extending vague assurances that staying loyal to trump would be better than crossing him. meanwhile, trump publicly blasts those who offer testimony against him in bluntly personal terms offering a clear example to others of the consequences of stepping out of line. the new york times offers another view of this type of carrot and stick witness pressure campaign reporting this, quote, former president trump s political organization and his allies have paid for or promised to finance the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses called in the congressional investigation into the january 6th attack, raising legal
to be held accountable? glen, you want to jump in on this? yeah. you know, bass l dumped a little water out of my justice glass, but i actually hang on to it. i agree with his observations. but here is my follow-up to that. proving a conspiracy, a seditiou conspiracy, or any other conspiracy, involves proving beyond a reasonable doubt people entered into an agreement to commit crime. you can be involved in an insurrection, you can be involved in ap attack on the capitol, you can destroy property and assault police officers and be guilty of all of that, without necessarily having been involved in a formal conspiracy. so conspiracy charges can be difficult to prove because you don t always have direct evidence of people entering into a criminal agreement. people don t sit down and kind of scratch it out and get it notarized.