Legal Analyst

We have a problem with peanut butter. We have a national shortage of peanut butter. And so can the judge, can the president declared an extraordinary emergency? Well, I think it probably depends on a number of— You like peanut butter? There's no limit. What you're saying is there's no limit.

We have a problem with peanut butter. We have a national shortage of peanut butter. And so can the judge, can the president declared an extraordinary emergency? Well, I think it probably depends on a number of— You like peanut butter? There's no limit. What you're saying is there's no limit.

We have a problem with peanut butter. We have a national shortage of peanut butter. And so can the judge, can the president declared an extraordinary emergency? Well, I think it probably depends on a number of— You like peanut butter? There's no limit. What you're saying is there's no limit.

It's the president's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. What we found in the legislative veto was that Congress would tell presidents after they had passed a law that they could or could not do things. This was Congress getting involved in the president's business.

It's the president's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. What we found in the legislative veto was that Congress would tell presidents after they had passed a law that they could or could not do things. This was Congress getting involved in the president's business.

It's the president's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. What we found in the legislative veto was that Congress would tell presidents after they had passed a law that they could or could not do things. This was Congress getting involved in the president's business.

One of the things that made this case so powerful was that you had his longtime friend, one of his best friends, and his girlfriend at the time, testifying against him for the prosecution.

One of the things that made this case so powerful was that you had his longtime friend, one of his best friends, and his girlfriend at the time, testifying against him for the prosecution.

One of the things that made this case so powerful was that you had his longtime friend, one of his best friends, and his girlfriend at the time, testifying against him for the prosecution.

The key point here is less about how much did he know about these people and more, did he intentionally lie to get on the jury?

The key point here is less about how much did he know about these people and more, did he intentionally lie to get on the jury?

The key point here is less about how much did he know about these people and more, did he intentionally lie to get on the jury?

If it's true that she basically made promises to this critical witness to help him out, get him leniency in exchange for his testimony, and then didn't disclose it, that's a grave legal sin.

If it's true that she basically made promises to this critical witness to help him out, get him leniency in exchange for his testimony, and then didn't disclose it, that's a grave legal sin.

If it's true that she basically made promises to this critical witness to help him out, get him leniency in exchange for his testimony, and then didn't disclose it, that's a grave legal sin.

I think it's safe to say if we knew everything we know now, when she prosecuted this case, she probably wouldn't have gotten the conviction.

I think it's safe to say if we knew everything we know now, when she prosecuted this case, she probably wouldn't have gotten the conviction.

I think it's safe to say if we knew everything we know now, when she prosecuted this case, she probably wouldn't have gotten the conviction.

I'm surprised that prosecutors are moving forward with this case. I don't see how they're going to be able to prove it.

I'm surprised that prosecutors are moving forward with this case. I don't see how they're going to be able to prove it.