to know, since you don't have a legal background, how would you be able to approach this from a layperson'sspective? >>> okay. i did attend all of the hearings for sheriff mirkarimi -- >> you attended those hearings for fun? >>> i attended those hearings. >> there were many of them. >>> that's right. but i was interested to see -- because this was sort of a new situation. this was uncharted waters for the ethics commission. and, so, i was interested to see, given my experience and what i have seen of the ethics commission, how they would handle that particular situation. and i will say that under the chairmanship of bennedict herr, i was beginning to feel a little hopeful that things were turning a positive corner. but once that -- >> what do you mean hopeful? >>> well, that maybe the sleeping watchdog was waking up and that they were taking steps to actually fulfill their, you know, mission. but after that -- and i thought, you know, in all fairness to the commission, that they handled that very, very well. but once that was over, there seemed to be less -- they seemed to be moving back in

martha stewart went to jail for basically the sa exact thing and she's a layperson.nly an attorney. he's the attorney general. he is supposed to beprepared. there's no excuses for him to have a lapse in judgment. >> this guy said i don't know in one form or anoer 57 times. >> right. >> good lord. >> either you signed off on it or you did not. he signed off on it. >> your frmer agcy is supposed to prevent people from lying, went in front of the most prestigious panel and lied. >> thank you. you agree with me then. >> i agree that your former employer messed up and should be punished, the same way you alwaysant my clients to be punished. >> there is agreement, then. >> yes. there is agreement. >> let's proceed to -- we got a lot on the docket here. >> lou, you know what's interesting. >> i know about dockets. >> there's the fox issue tat has pushed the whole associated press subpoe like under the table. meanwhil that's a whole other issue in and of itself. >> the associated press hpened a week before we heard about rosen. that was already there. this is now the second

if you're a layperson watching this, it's shocking that this would even have to be decided by the supreme. because it just seems just ridiculous anyone could patent a gene. how did we get here to begin with? >> the supreme court agreed with common sense. >> which is surprising, why we're talking about it. >> for 30 years the patent office has been issuing patents on human gene, on many, many thousands of genes of the genome and that has been a barrier for all sorts of laboratory scientists who want to do research on specific genes and provide testing on those genes. the justification, once you remove the gene from the body, they say it's a new invention and our argument was, no, simply removing iron from the rock or removing a kidney from the body would not make that -- >> you can't patent a kidney just because you can take it out of someone. the first person who operated on someone and took a kidney out couldn't walk that kidney over to the patent office, plunk it on the table and say, i got a patent on that. >> myriad's attorney thought lithium, of the periodic table, would be patentabl

. >> as this story keeps developing, i'm just -- me as a layperson saying okay, i'm wondering when the big press conference is going to. >> it's not going to. this is a second-term president. he doesn't have to be popular. he doesn't have to answer questions. he doesn't have to get re-elected. he's a guy who will throw himself under the bus. he'll do it. >> so this happens in most second terms. >> you've got enough time to find what's wrong. >> when you consider this, i think all presidents -- that's a huge accomplishment. but this one is the first person of color to be president of the united states. his second term, by all appearances, getting away from him. not accomplishing what he's set out to accomplish in many ways. you don't think he wants to set a precedence -- >> you've got him -- he claims executive privilege when you're talk about fast and furious. in this case, nobody seems to know who's running the show, who's making decisions. to me, that's saying you're not running it very well. and that's not how a second term should be. >> so you're talking about -- >> or the two mill

tape, and they'll be able to listen to it and try to come to a conclusion on their own using their layperson who is screaming on this tape. that's also very powerful, because the tape in and of itself is very emotional. it's a very powerful thing to hear. and it sounds like a young man screaming. with the expert testimony, it just shores up the state's argument that this is indeed trayvon martin. and what that means is as marcia pointed out, that is such powerful evidence that trayvon was not the initial aggressor. he was begging for his life when he was killed. >> isn't it also problematic that whoever was screaming and this expert says it was trayvon, stopped screaming once the shots were fired? if you were the guy that was shooting and was screaming, why wouldn't you stop screaming afterwards? wouldn't you say oh my god, i had to shoot him. >> there was absolute silence. as a jury, when you come into the jury room, you don't leave your common sense at the front door. you bring that with you. common sense may tell you the person with the gun is in a position of power. why would the person

but the jury will be allowed to apply layperson's opinion testimony to make that determination. >> and an unbelievably massive story. it was wall-to-wall in the media. and at that time that jane surdyka began to give interviews in conversations subsequent to this incident, she had heard about a little boy. i mean, we'd all seen pictures of trayvon martin in his football uniform, i think, you know, in maybe fourth or fifth grade. so as a defense attorney, what would you do with what you're hearing on the stand? >> well, first, the defense already scored a major victory, keeping out that science that just didn't meet the frye standard, and allowing the jurors to make their own determination. the bottom line, it is the prosecution's burden to prove not only beyond a reasonable doubt that george zimmerman killed trayvon martin, but they also have to prove that -- they have to disapprove his self-defense defense. so when it comes to the screaming issue, the jury ultimately is going to apply their own belief -- their own sort of experiences to determine whether or not they can -- >> yeah, da

. >> it's a layperson question. you said that -- i thought you said that the chicken story was actually -- it was a virus that caused the mutation, so that's one question. the other one, the other thing you said is that when the chicken died, he took the tumor and injected it into another chicken. so you said cancer is contagious. but how else is it contagious if it doesn't -- how does the tumor get from one place to the other? here it was injected. kind of two questions. >> so, that was in animals and was a virus. okay? so -- it's the virus that is contagious. viruses are contagious. the physical matter of a tumor is not. it is just matter, right? so, in people, cancer is for the most part not contagious, does not contagious cancer. there's human papillomavirus, we know, can lead to cervical cancer. 20% of cancers have a viral connection. that's the right -- >> between 20 and 30. worldwide, hepatitis, liver cancer. but, yes. 20% in the u.s. probably. >> okay. so, for the most part, it's a phenomenon of animal world

>> i will offer as a layperson, i would say those are typically not allies of the president. >> would you agree then that ms. lerner, mr. shulman, senior staff admitted knowing this information previously are subordinates of the president? >> yes, they are subordinates of the president. >> we can conclude then that either the president or the subordinates of the president were well aware of or were involved in the targeting of political opponents? >> i don't know that i can judge -- jump to thatconclusion. i think there's more analysis and review that needs to be done. i understand the question and understand the need to answer that question. i think we are asking for indulgence to make sure we can review the facts and get the information that you and this committee needs to help answer those questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> this is quite a mystery. we spent a couple hours now. there has been a hearing today and hearings last week trying to determine how this came about. i know there has been some conversation today that is not necessarily -- why these individuals to these ac

. >> catherine:surprised with any >> the strange thing if you read as a later as a layperson.ce is seems like there was a critical mass wedding to say that marriage equality. he lays >> catherine: so this all but end up in the supreme court or in some other fed perform and possibly would not be long >> it will. lots of fight ahead but a pretty strong >> it will. lohave a good night. here you go. you, too. i'm going to dream about that steak. i'm going to dream about that tiramisu. what a night, huh? but, um, can the test drive be over now? head back to the dealership? oh, yeah. [ male announcer ] it's practically yours. [ wife ] sorry. [ male announcer ] but we still need your signature. volkswagen sign then drive is back. and it's never been easier to get a passat. that's the power of german engineering. get $0 down, $0 due at signing, $0 deposit, and $0 first month's payment on any new volkswagen. visit vwdealer.com today. am i don't know. any medications? on any new volkswagen. last immunization shots? really? honey, what's my blood pressure medicine called? one time i took

and patrick was a servant, did his best by the people in his parish, and he has since become a layperson who is married, has pursued cases of abuse around the world. he is -- i am a impressed with his work in alaska among native alaskans which was absolutely critical to them finding some bits of the justice and he now crisscrosses the world doing good work. [applause] >> last but not least is our surprise guest, richard sipe. [applause] >> richard was first a priest and also of monk from st. john's, then as the psychotherapist, social scientist, educator, investigated this problem when no one would talk about it. this was before cobra mentioned child abuse on tv. this is something important for all of us to appreciate. as late as 1980 the medical text that physicians read for their education told them that there was no such thing as a child sexual abuse. oh sure, there were crazy instances, maybe one in a million, literally this was taught, in a million, and richard understood better but he understood more that catholic priests were suffering with the burden of the church's sexual teachi

as investors and layperson you are in it for the long haul bumps along the way. you have to ride it out. >> you have to ride it out. there will be some bumps along the way. economic experts say the markets will still go up. some say by the end of this year, could be up 15% higher. >> dow is up 13% for the year? >> 13% for the year. it could keep going up. it's just below 15,000. some say it could go up to 18,000. you are going to see sharp sell offs. ben bernanke speaks in august and again in the fall. you are going to have two choppy rides and have a steel stomach. >> buckle up. nice to see you. thanks very much. lester? >> thank you. take old clothes or furniture and drop them off at a good will location. the centers employ disabled workers. you may not realize some of them only make pennyies an hour. it's legal, but it is fair? "rock center" takes a look. >> reporter: good will a place where you feel good about leaving clothes and shopping in a tough economy. goodwill's mission is to give people a job who are down on their luck. good will does a lot of good no

they're also different in that ahmadinejad was a layperson, whereas rohani comes out of the clericalating. the problem is there's a deep structural contradiction within the iranian system. the president doesn't have much power on these core foreign policy an national security issues. those are held by the supreme leader. remember the last two presidents of iran, by the end of their terms, fallen afoul of the supreme leader completely. katami did start out as a reformist. he's now under a form of house arrest. ahmadinejad started out in some ways as an opponent of the clerical system. he's discredited the supreme leader doesn't like him. so the real question is will the supreme leader look at the results, and as she says, now you have 20 years where the iranian people are basically saying we want conciliation, we want reconciliation with the west, we want to join the modern world. will he look at that data and say i'm going to give this president, who has the right credentials, some leeway to try to negotiate with the americans, or will he do what he has done for the last ten years, w

>> i think i'll offer as a layperson and the citizens. i would say those are typical not allies of the president. >> >> they are political opponent. would you agree that mrs. learner, admitted knowing this information previously are board nant of the president? >> yes. they are intord nant of the president. >> therefore we can conclude then that either the president or the intord nant of the president were well awared of or targeting of political opponent. >> i don't know i can jump to scare that conclusion. i think that's administrator analysis review that needs to be done. i understand the question. i understand the need to want to know the question. we are asking for indulgence to make sure we can review the facts and get the information that you and the committee needs to help answers those questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. yoder. >> thank you. this is a mystery. we have spent a couple of hours now. there's been hearing today and last week trying to determine how it came about. i know, there's been some conversa