the judges act would have bren the impasse if it had been passed before the presidential election this year. the genius behind the judges act and the deal to pass it it was devoid of the politics. we took recommendations made by the nonpartisan judicial conference of the united states. the nominees were spread out over three presidential administrations and six congresses and the judge allotments would begin with a future unknown quote, unquote next president. in august, both sides of the aisle joined together and passed the judges act. we could have done the same thing here. we should have done the same thing here. if republican leadership brought the bill to the house floor in september, we could have passed it on suspension. back then the president still would have been unknown and the underlying promise of the bill was still present. but when when the bill arrived in the house, republican leadership refused to touch it. my colleagues and i begged them to take it up and explained the stakes. they knew this would create new judgeships would only if the bill was passed into law before

was there a bren off handle with the ax or was there no handle? and the defense is going to seize on those discrepancies and they're going to call policeman back to the saying. he just said this and he just said this and this will feed into the idea for lizzie's defenders that this was a kind of a keystone cops affair and their testimony could not be trusted. and when asked why didn't you find a bloody dress? they say, initially we didn't search whole house. we didn't think lizzie was suspect. and it's improper to go rummaging around in the bedroom bedrooms of women. they later will search the house. but by then we've already had the dress burning incident. now followed closely here for our purposes, the judge's are going to make a couple of key evidentiary rulings that will this case. first of all, the prosecco hooters want to introduce lizzie's contradictory statements. the inquest, they think they're revealing. but as you recall, at the inquest, the judge denied jennings, that she have an attorney with her and and as i mentioned, the protection

director bren, i start with you. we had a lot of conversations about tulsi gabbard.rd would change the way other countries traditional allies would deal with us. what is striking about tulsi gabbard's nomination is that there has been no explanation for it by anybody. no one out there sort of knocking back any of what we just played, any of those clips that she constantly and inexplicably parrots propaganda. do you with your contacts and experience have any idea why she's been tapped for this post? >> i think it is straightforward. donald trump who is following basically the authoritarian's playbook, you want to control the instruments of power. which include the intelligence community, security services, law enforcement, as well as try to do everything possible to control the media and so having somebody like a tulsi gabbard as director of national intelligence as someone who is malable in his hands, and really just, you know, demonstrates how foolish the appointment selection would be, the director of national intelligence is one of the most if not the most challen

the judges act would have bren the impasse if it had been passed before the presidential election this year. the genius behind the judges act and the deal to pass it it was devoid of the politics. we took recommendations made by the nonpartisan judicial conference of the united states. the nominees were spread out over three presidential administrations and six congresses and the judge allotments would begin with a future unknown quote, unquote next president. in august, both sides of the aisle joined together and passed the judges act. we could have done the same thing here. we should have done the same thing here. if republican leadership brought the bill to the house floor in september, we could have passed it on suspension. back then the president still would have been unknown and the underlying promise of the bill was still present. but when when the bill arrived in the house, republican leadership refused to touch it. my colleagues and i begged them to take it up and explained the stakes. they knew this would create new judgeships would only if the bill was passed into law before

i often think of my friend bren, who lost her husband last year.ot that year old bren, but a study out today from the policy institute at king's college london reveals a disturbing trend compared to when king charles first became prince of wales in 1969. young people are now nearly ten times more likely to be alone this christmas. what used to be 1 in 100 21 to 35 year olds spending christmas alone is now 1 in 11. it's also concerning that the total proportion of people alone has, over the last 55 years, more than doubled from 5 to 11%. and that increase has come from across nearly all demographics. in fact, the only age group to not go up is the over 65 seconds. it's not like that's a good thing for older people. i wish no one who didn't want to would be by themselves at this time of year, but i wonder how much of this trend is from those who do want to be alone, who prefer to be alone? and how much of this points to an ever more fragmented society? whether you're religious or not? and even though this same report indicates a decline in the religi