I suppose, what do you think . You understand its a fiction, its a drama, so you might think they might be taking some liberties, but you do assume it is very mu. Very. Its sticking to the truth. And when we were talking about it last week and we were planning that section of the programme, of course we invited netflix to take part, and it chose not to put a guest into the programme. So the only time weve actually heard from someone at netflix talking about this was to a parliamentary committee, which is where we get to the latest developments of the story. Exactly right. Because, as you say, the only time netflix has commented since the furore around this programme was when a netflix executive from the uk, benjamin king, gave evidence to the culture, media and Sport Committee and he talked about the show in this way. He said it was obviously a true story of the horrific abuse that the writer and Protagonist Richard Gadd suffered at the hands of a convicted stalker, and that is key con
Of stalking that he underwent and says he underwent in real life. And a lot of the controversy revolves around what happens right at the start of the first episode, where were told by netflix, by the producer of this programme, this is a true story. Exactly. Because it is unusual. You know, were used to seeing these kind of programmes where it might say, this is inspired by true events, or, this is based on a true story. Its very rare to see, this is a true story. And as a viewer, when you watch this as a true story, i suppose, what do you think . You understand its a fiction, its a drama, so you might think they might be taking some liberties, but you do assume it is very mu. Very. Its sticking to the truth. And when we were talking about it last week and we were planning that section of the programme, of course we invited netflix to take part, and it chose not to put a guest into the programme. So the only time weve actually heard from someone at netflix talking about this was to a p
Admitting that these facts were so inextricably intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett, that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpreted his statements. Please to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x. This would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial, we believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the us Supreme Court, that what were talking about is absolute immunity. Yes. But absolute immunity just for a president s official acts in office. I think thats a crucial distinction. And
Concession at all. Was Michael Dreeben essentially admitting the attorney for the special counsels office, essentially admitting that these facts were so strikingly intertwined in a colloquy with Justice Barrett that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpreted his statements, at least. Well, and to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x. This would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial. We believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the the us Supreme Court, that what were talking about is ab
why he s arguing for it as well. i think we really need to have a conversation about what does it mean to be a republican now and how has that changed and and how about and what are people implicitly accepting when they just say if i want a strong president? it is all in for tonight. alex wagner starts goodnight. good evening. alex alex it is tells me that these e legitimate conversations were having with a man who wants to be president. thanks to you at home for joining me this evening. the former president of the united states is a free man. he can go anywhere he chooses and today he chose to attend his civil fraud trial in new york city. this is weaponization of justice. this is something nobody can see to this extent, it s called election interference. it s a sad day for our country that a thing like this could take place. i m sitting in a courthouse instead of being in iowa where i should be. again, no one compelled mr. trump to be in that courthouse today. he coul