reference in that message, well, it is trumps former chief of death, mark meadows. in other words, mark meadows, let me know you have your deposition tomorrow is what the slide should read. now, hutchinson has been represented by longtime trump white house lawyer, stephan pat and tina. for the last year and a half, his law firm has received payments ranging from 10 to $45,000 from trumps save america pack for legal consulting. this is all in the public record, washington post reporting hutchison cut ties after she suggested that she not testify publicly, the post also pointed out, federal laws, tamper congressional testimony. in case none of that was not crystal clear to you, tampering with a witness is a crime, so the new details, they are chilling, they found a lot. like the kind of thing you hear from fictional mob bosses. as long as i continue to be a team player , they know i am on the right team. i am doing the right thing. we know you did the right thing. you hav
That it has to be applied uniformly. prosecutors every day make decisions to use their discretion. sometimes it is because they want to obtain justice in their community, sometimes it is because of a relatively minor offense. such as theft, that they may have an alternative way of dealing with it, like i diversion program, or maybe a case that is just outdated like adultery laws that are out of the book that no prosecutor chooses to prosecute that because it would be unfair and unjust laws on the books but it doesn t make sense to actually prosecute that law. and abortion is that kind of law as far as i m concerned. reporter: so, carol, do you fear retribution in some way professionally because you are an elected position in your jurisdiction, so do you fear some type of retribution or some type of pushback from the community that elected you if you opt not to prosecute these types of cases? i ran on a platform in 2015 and 2020 as emphatically pro-
Reuters/Danish Ismail
The Supreme Court has admitted an application from the Central government to decide if the members of the armed forces may be exempted from the ruling of the court in the case of Joseph Shine vs Union of India which decriminalised adultery.
In its application, the government has referred to article 33 of the Indian Constitution, which authorises the Parliament to restrict or abrogate (by law) any of the fundamental rights in terms of their applications to the members of the armed forces so to ensure proper discharge of their duties and to maintain discipline amongst them. Pursuant to this mandate, there already exist many additional restrictions on the armed forces which civilians are not subject to.