arnot: the basic discrepancy was this. there were two different systems.as an automatic system which misgauged d the weathehr anand led forerecasters to say n nine miles s visibili. in aviation terms, the weather forecast that jfk jr. got was just plain wrong, anand it's thahat forecastt that a accounted f for his dea. [ camera shutter clicks ] radziwill: carolyn called me from the plane right before they were taking off, and i think it was probably a little bit after 8:00. i don't remember anything really important from that conversation. i didndn't certaininly think it wouldld be the last time i would d speak to m my frien. i reremember at the end shshe s, you know, "i love you." and i -- for some reason, i dididn't say, "i love you," back, and that a always stucuck with, and d she said,, "i'll l call you w when i lan" and d then that t was the lat i ever heard from her or anyone. it wasn't until 8:38 that they took off. camemerota: the e ntsb repor, which was issued later, tells us a little bit about what happened. the towewer controller issuess a takek

arnot: there is this thing called a type-"t" personality, which is a thrill-seeking personality, anden alleged this is what the kennedy family has. therere's no question that john was fearless and loved adventure. some of that adventure was also an attempt to escscape the susurly bond, in thihis case, of thehe overwhelmlming and d oppressingng public atatt. just to find somewhere to be alone and to be able to think for himself. flying, to me, was a logical extension of that impulse, right, adventure, speed, e escape. john started taking his flying lessons in the early 1980s. told a f friend it w was the e most fun he ever had withth clothes o on. andedersen: it was thehe only way y he cod get awayay from everything, get away from all the expectations and the burdens and the prying eyes. and he felt that it was the only place he could truly be free. the bibiggest thining about flg for john is he was out of the public eye. bradley: i remember, i took a flight with john, a commercial flight with john. it was a zoo. he'd always take a window seat so that nobody could, you know, tap him o

and so often the problems that they have arnot that they're afraid of trying to make that connection. they just don't really know how all the time. so wt we do is we trto apply sound theological principles and sound economic principles in sically trying to teach people that there is this concordant effect between libtarian theory and the way we think abou politics and ethics from a christian point of view. and to quote from your book, to give allegiance to jesus christ is to strip roe of its power and author. yeah. when in the early in the early days of christianity, one of the mantras of early christians was jesus is lord. and the corollary to that is caesar is not. and so that's why we talk about stripping rome of its power and authority. it is, instead of ging this allegiance, the roman emperor, who claim to be god himself, or at least the son of a god, we give our allegiance only to jesus, the one true son of god. are you as a libertarian, fearful that americans have given too much authority to our government. ll, i wouldn't say i'm exactly fearful of it. i know that is the case.

charlie arnot is an outkick host and she joins us now.ve charlie, this has happened over and over again. itain. anappened in 2016 with the nba and the transgender bathroom bill in northled carolina. they pulled out the all-star game. somebody mischaracterizeout ofsw like gavin newsom, and oftentimes they're met with their propaganda success. >> well, yeah, because, like, you just >> bec mentioned, it's an old trick. the left has been using it for as lon ag as we can remember,en because they know when they put something out, tmmatory inflammatory information, people are either low informatioinformatn or if they k out answers for themselves. where are they turning doe to mainstream media who does nothing but continually lie to them anywaybut lie ? w it so this is a tactic that works. they know it's only going to incite hatredy go conservats in their policies even more, and they're going to continue an. contin >> this one seems i mean, this one seems the most outlandish. i mean, i don't know how gavin newsomsh., how he avoids, of course, no one will ever ask him, but how he avoids answerin

we do think itdefines the category of those who arnot risk poib. >> if this were oceeding, you would have a determatn like you are talking about. somee would be nvted of a crime. felony assault or something. or you have sothg that is tipatory or diwear a court, a civil court, makes that determination. just from analytic anoint that would there be a difference between crimal determination and is able determination? don't think it would make a difference withreect to whether the legislature can create categories of people consider dangerous or not risk possiblear that's very much informed by history and tradition here t 's not the is thatthonly provisions that have existed over ti targeting those who are dangerouor provisions focusing on those with criminal convictions. that's an and components of the law-abiding standard and protect other but we have a numb examples throughout history of those who were designed even if civil adjudications or a civil like process. n you give me an example? >> short readr example mental illness are the degree that was held up as the quintessenalexample

we asked people, lower urts to ensure they arnot overstepping their bounds and getting overly involved in state and cal politics. >> within the presumption of good faithis baked into how e burdens work here. in this ular case, the plaintiffs had the obligati to disentangle race in politics. we do think the promant standard is a very high anrd that accounts, that does not find predominance me just on racial awareness or race consciousness. setting the bar that high is what affords respect to legislatures in this area. >> just a follow-up on e question, how would a district court look at this exact same evidentiary record and come to the opposite conclusion in your view? >> expert evidence played a big role here. i think the district court is in a very goodposition to make the kind of assessments abt methodology that we have been discussing here today. they make you look at this record and you concluded that the stct court could have said no, the expert evidceis not sufficiently reliable in order to support the plntiff's case? >> thk expert evidence is a big part it. with think the were

we arnot a climate regulator. >> i am out of time. thank you. >> thank yovery much. madam chairman. mr. chairman, welcome. can you give a description of the power of the ivate equity sector over the la 25 years, w they have moved into banking, insurance, real estate, a host of other things. do you believe th these are competitive to large banks and also potentially systemic risks? >> the private fund, private equity and hedge funds adventure capital, 26 or 27 trillion under management, 25 years ago, there was a report -- i helped write it so i remember this. at that point in time, the entire field was less than $1 trillion. it has grown significantly in terms of its comparon to banking. the total commercial banking sector in the u.s. is 23 trillion. again, you are the numbers i just said about this sector. it can be systemicly important. it was systemically important 25 years ago. it was teetering on the brink of failure. the field is systemically important today. >> our advisor public funds are required to maintain anti-money laundering programs, know their customers. are you conce