I think we need to think through, to me also is more this position we need to have all 19 people at the table 47 days from now, and maybe this is something, if you need to tag team with somebody else on the counsel, one of the first things i kind of want to talk through is potentially how removal affects this. So i know your estate is currently litigating this issue with multiple codefendants in federal court. And while that is happening until a decision is made, we cant issue a judgment of conviction here. Yes, judge. No matter how judge rules, isnt either party going to have right to appeal that rule something. Thats correct. Both sides would have the right to appeal. So the 11th circuit could take, any idea of how long to weigh in . As long as they need to. Right. So it could potentially even optimistically be a six month turn around for the 11th circuit to come up with a decision, right . Yes, sir. If its a fourmonth trial, this starts in october, we present the entire states case,
element, left, right, whatever that meant in a given era, have at some time or another used this. because it s a natural human argument to make. where we are right now and where we were last night is one of the richest ironies, though, in that long span. because there s really in the modern era the conservative sense that there is a media legal deep state world against them. really begins with alger hiss, richard nixon and franklin roosevelt. they all walked into a bar just kidding and there s one parachute. but it began in 1945 when hiss was a young state department aide, conservatives came to believe that franklin roosevelt had sold us out, it was called
should be spared on? certainly we can afford it. the cost of dealing with these people, the costs of helping the three countries that are sending most of them here, all those things are well within our means. i think what you are seeing going on here is not really an economic argument, it s a human argument, frankly, between people who don t want those people in this country and people who don t want to send them back to the countries where they would be at risk. and as i said, that s the dilemma that we re facing as a country where the president doesn t seem to have exactly decided what to do. the republicans have a clear point of view. liberal democrats have a clear point of view they don t want to just send them back. but i don t think we ve really come to grips with that. you say exactly that. there has been pushback from a lot of republicans saying 3.7 is too much. we can t afford it. you know, certainly there s this question of sound fiscal policy in the midst of all of this.
no, they don t because there s other interests, the private prison so, there are interests in play. so, you know, there is i think an economic argument, and that s an argument that we re going to hear hopefully this coming week from the business community, but that has to be paired with this human argument that the religious groups are going to be pushing for that grassroots campaign. so grassroots social smooumt part of any other bright lights you see. quite the business. it is debehind us. they always have been, but they are organizing against a party they support, the republican party, and there is just we passed immigration reform in 1965, and that s the influx that we ve seen, and we ve never really had a comprehensionive solution, how to deal with everything from security to a path to citizenship. so there s a time an issue s time has come argument. i think there are many republicans, frankly, who privately and some publicly agree with this. and soy think if you have th
to separate the emotions of the case, their impressions of the people. what the nuts and bolts are of the law? i think it is hard. every time they re talking about the intricacies of the campaign finance law and the fact that john edwards needed that specific intent to violate the law, otherwise he s not guilty, those are very strong arguments. i think they need a very powerful human argument before this jury. think they need to stand up and say, look at this, injuries. we see a situation like this every week. it may not be a presidential candidate in every circumstance. why did he cover it up? it s not because of a campaign contribution. it s because he didn t want his wife to find out. it s the oldest reason in the book. you know this isn t a campaign finance case. thank i have to make that kind of human appeal to the jurors and also talk about the strength of their case in terms of the finance campaign law and how confusing it and whether he would have been on notice that taking m