the language of those rulings was very protective, very mistakes were made general and not letting on exactly what they have done. we will never know ryan braun, he said he is not talking about it and neither is baseball. when you get to a-rod they are starting to fight and alleged he used hgha and not in a short period of time but over number of years when he was racking up all of these all-star numbers. they are showing that they are ready to give some details. expect as witnesses come to testify in front of this arbitrator people who say that they personally shot up alex rodriguez with steroids over time. we may start to hear a little bit of this unofficially and, again, those are the nips and tucks of a player and his legacy even if the arbitrator were to clear alex rodriguez which no one suspects to happen or reduce his suspension, those details might be so damaging it really doesn t matter. good point, rachel.
yeah, sunny hit most of the points right on. the fact is that, you know, people know, though, that marijuana, it really is the issue. it could backfire on the defense. have to be very careful because with the liberalization of marijuana, the acceptance by many in society, it sometimes can backfire if you re trying to make it too big a deal that he was this drug teenager. many people know that marijuana is typically going to make you slower, not more aggressive. there s an issue with the defense that they need to be very careful about, but i think all the more goes towards showing that trayvon martin wasn t what the state is attempting to portray and that there s other sides to this. so this once again kind of nips away, chips away at the state s ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. as sunny said, you ve got the medical examiner. that s what hurts this
that every law abiding american makes, not the content of the call but the fact of the call. one number calling another number, all of that stuff. and i think that, you know, if the president wants a debate and there is a lot of debate going on in congress, and i know just around people s dinner s tables shouldn t the president makes the case for the nips r- nsa program? in terms much the real scandals, not necessarily the white house but the administration had a very bad day yesterday, i m sure you played the clip of gym jordan questioning robert mueller. he couldn t name who the head of the investigation was or what they were doing. one could argue in a bureaucrat particular sense maybe he wouldn t know the name of the specific guy running that investigation, but in a pr sense he was very ill served that somebody didn t say to him, hey you re going to get asked about this and you better have the answer. martha: that is my question, chris, when you re briefing the fbi director and he
that they can only be they can only be solved through truly radical change. i think one thing you see in this budget which is not quite status quo but is more amealier us budget is that that s not true. that conceit has been a way for people to sneak in very significant ideological objectives under the cover of deficit reduction. when paul ryan talks about getting to a balanced budget, which he used to do by the end of 2014, now the end of 2023, there s no particular listen we need to be at 0% of deficit as opposed to 1.5%. as the president says at 1.7%. having a budget that takes a little bit of nips and tucks here and there, does chained cpi but doesn t completely change medicare, takes $400 billion in savings in medicare but doesn t completely voucherize it. there s nothing wrong with that. we need to make things work out. we don t need to be consistently and continuously overhauling everything every couple of yo s years. congressman yarmuth,
exemption for charitable contributions. the harder question is what republicans get on the spending side of that deal. but even that doesn t seem to be such a mystery these days. a lot of nips and tucks. a lot of cost sharing. there will be a unified deductible and increases in provider payments. and the concession is likely to be the medicare eligibility age rises from 65 to 67. medicare eligibility age rises. democrats do not like that idea as nancy pelosi explained yesterday. first of all, show me the money. i don t even know why that is something that people think is going to produce money. what are we going to do with people between 65 and 67? show me the money there. but it s not even the right thing to do, first and foremost. but is it a trophy that the republicans want? is that the trophy they want in