we establish standards, typically when we have established standards, these equipment, these standards, are already in the fleet because it takes us a long time. when ntsa establishes a safety standard, we have to make sure that the standard is objective. it means it has to be -- we have to have a prepeatable test metrc so anybody around the country, around the world, can run our test metric and determine whether they are in compliance with our performance standards. so that takes time. it takes a lot of research. it takes a lot of effort and takes many years to get it right. we can't change our rules over, you know, willy-nilly overnight, so we take the care to get it right the first time. but we have the comfort in knowing that if something is out there, whether or not it complies with our standards, if it proves in practice to present an unreasonable risk to safety, that's where defect authority will kick in, and we exercise that authority when we have to and when appropriate and necessary. it's a very large part of what nhtsa does. it's a very important part of what nhtsa does beca

boy: i had the standard burger. lemonis: you had the standard burger?ged the menu to not only five signature burgers, but we built an entire business model off of potatoes. check it out, this came out nice. sammy: it came out beautiful. lemonis: pick your potato, pick your toppings, oven, go. sammy: simple. yeah. lemonis: we built a very high-margin, very popular baked-potato bar. it gives people the chance to buy a baked potato or a sweet potato stuffed with all their favorite toppings. we've also added an ice cream bar. not only is there scoops of ice cream, but what we have now is a cake shake. it is so good. it costs us about $1.78 to build the shake, including all the products that can go in there. we sell that shake for $5. so we know the margins are spectacular. woman: ah! lemonis: you guys are the only ones with red velvet ice cream on the island. what is this, all the orders? sammy: yeah. lemonis: let's see how high we can make it. the energy level, the enthusiasm level, the vibe in here -- compared to the first day i met you guys, it's like i'

standards and welfare standards are kept high.ods and so on. your environment a nalyst methods and so on. your environment analyst reported at the time on the agriculture bill being published, that the bill proposed is all about encouraging better protection of soil, encouraging people to do when things and paying people to do those types of things and that is obviously what these organisations, we can use that type of tactic, to ensure we do better in terms of environmental protection. the eu minimum standard had to aspire to meet standards. but this is a potential problem with the us? the us is much lower food safety standards. one of the request is they we would need to allow their products and the government cannot do that if it is going to keep our health and safety food standards as high as they are and the idea that america will back down on that is a little bit naive i think. the times again, head of hs2 to go ahead. little bit naive i think. the times again, head of h52 to go ahead. my gut feeling is that it will popularl

back at what is the intent, the safety intent of the standard? level, how isal the safety case being resolved in the proposed petition for an exemption? it's something that takes time. our first view and we are learning our process. anything, over time, the learning curve will probably move faster but right now, we want to exercise appropriate care and caution to ensure that and uppprove a vehicle to 2500 vehicles, if they can enter the stream of commerce. we want to make sure that consumers and other entities where we get into one of these vehicles, we want to make sure that you are just as safe in that vehicle as if you or i were in any other vehicle. the benefit challenge right now is that our focus on the research side is really on the fundamentals -- what is the being resolved in the standard and how are we resolving that in this petition? >> my last question -- i will highlight a point that not only are we talking to congress and testify before congress but when we talk about the bill that was passed by the house on the one being considered

mcdonald-douglas does not change the standard. it shifts only the order of introducing evidence at trial so it won't have an effect on the ultimate standard. >> thank you, counsel. mr. chemerinsky? >> good morning, mr. chief justice and may it please the court. statutory language matters. federal civil rights statutes use the words because of or based on, this court has inferred a requirement but for causation. this court has never created a requirement but for causation in the absence of such language. section 1981 uses no such words. it's crucial to remember the procedural posture of this case. it is on a motion to dismiss all the ninth circuit held was that it's sufficient to state a claim under section 1981 to allege that race was a motivating factor in the denial of the contract. this is on page 2a of the supplement to this petition. there is a good deal of confusion in this case so far, but the relationship between motivating factor but for causation and burden shifting. when this court has adopted a motivating factor, it ha

they don't have a standard that defines a specific defense they don't have a standard that defines incoherence terms that are going to be identifiable what the offenses are. so they just add on and it's gotta be recognizably wrong. they say they are doing this to resolve a tension they call within the constitution. because they point out, this is quoting from the report, the structure of the constitution including prohibition on bills of attainder and the clause apply thatll impeachable offense should not come as a surprise. that's exactly what alan dershowitz pointed out. everything about the terms of thede constitution speaking of n offense, a conviction, that it is should be done by a jury. they talk about impeachment as a criminal offense term. but the tension here is not within the constitution, between the house managers definition which lacks any coherent definition of a defense that would catch people by surprise in the constitution. that's the tension the trying to resolve between their malleable standards with no clear defense in the constitution and the principles of justice and the

they don't have a standard that defines a specific offense, they don't have a standard that defines incoherence terms that are going to be identifiable what the offenses are. so they just add on and it's got to be recognizably wrong they say they're doing this to resolve attention, they call it within the constitution. which as they point out and this is quoting from the report, the structure of the constitution including its prohibition on bills of attainder and ex post facto clause implies impeachable offenses should not come as a surprise. that's exactly what professor dershowitz pointed out and everything about the terms of the constitution , speaking of anoffense and the conviction , that all crimes should be tried by jury, they all talk about impeachment in thosecriminal offense terms . but attention here is it within the constitution, between the house managers definition which lacks any coherent definition of an offense that would catch people by surprise and the constitution, that the tension they're trying to resolve is between their malleable standards that face no clear offense and

what the standards conditions give us the ability to take projects that qualify for the standard issues we see and give them a pathway to qualify for the ceqa exemption that is granted understate law and we don't feel there would be an issue with projects at that small scale kicking up into a higher level of environmental review. some of the projects, like a single family home that need an m.n.d. might be able to become an exemption and others may not depending on what that issue is it. in general, this is going to be mid to larger scale projects for those that are triggering the declarations and this is the applicability and we may apply the standard conditions to any and subject to would be a project under ceqa and it's written in such a way that would include some of these projects. that separate from what is in -- it will determine what the applicable might be. in archeology it might be different. that level of doug detail will n each document. we look at all the same projects to evaluate is that under ceqa analysis or is it not. so just a couple of examples of the conditions that w

that is not a standard at all. it ends up to be infinitely malleable. that is a telling factor that says how dangerous it is in the house judiciary committee report because after they defined the concept of abuse of power and involves exercising government power for personal interest and not the national interest and depends on your subject ofnd motives, they realized it is infinitely malleable without a clear standard and is violating a fundamental premise of the american system of justice you have to have noted something is wrong like professor dershowitz pointed out last night it has to be defined in advance of the way to resolve this is too say in addition to our definition high crimes and misdemeanors is conduct that is wrong to a reasonable person. that is their add on to do with the fact they have unconstitutionally vague standard not one that defines a specific thing or incoherence or terms to be identifiable what those offenses are so it has to be recognized and wrong and they say they do this to resolve attention within the constitution becaus

they don't have a standard that defines in coherence. they say they're doing this to resolve a tension, they call it, within the constitution because they point out and this is quoting from the report, the structure of the constitution, including its prohibition of bills of atander, that -- and that's exactly what was pointed out. everything in terms of the constitution, speaking offense, the conviction, that all crimes should be tried by jury, they all talk about impeachment in the criminal offense terms. but it isn't within the constitution, it's within the definition, which lacks definition of offense and would keep people and the tension they're trying to resolve, which states no sense and the constitution and the principles of justice embodied in the constitution that requires some clearer, they wanted to point that out in relation to the standards for impeachable offenses because it's another piece of the constitutional puzzle that fits in with the exposition that president dershowitz sets out. and it shows an inherent flaw in the

that is not a standard at all. it ends a being infinitely malleable and something i think, a telling factor that reflects how malleable it is and how dangerous it is is in the house judiciary committee's report but with the concept of abuse of power, they say it involves exercising government power for personal interest and not national interest and depends on subjective motive they realize it is infinitely malleable. there is not a clear standard there, and there is a fundamental premise of the american system of justice, you have to have notice of what is wrong. it is something professor dershowitz pointed out, it has to define something in advance. the way to resolve it is to say in addition to our definition, high crimes and misdemeanors involve conduct that is recognizably wrong to a reasonable person. that is the kind of add-on to the fact they have an unconstitutionally vague standard, a standard that defines a specific offense, or a standard that defines in coherent terms that will be identified with the ad

of living the standard of living in america available to. many low income workers but also retirees is way too difficult to achieve a standard of living that they were used to when they went there to fight in the 1960 s. and 1970 s. we left vietnam in 1075 well one of them is john rockhold he's a navy vet and he served in vietnam in the war and now he lives there so he was a fighter he was fighting to bring them capitalism and now he's gone there because they're able to deliver all the things that matter and life for a cheaper price than america cam so it was worth it that whole war in vietnam because it secured retirement for americans in the year 2020 they can get a good standard of living and affordable health care so. we shouldn't feel too bad about it the loss was worth it for sure had we won this would not be an option for john rocker old he lives there now he lives on the 20th floor of a condo building for an apartment he bought 425-0000 has like 4 bedrooms he has a wife kid he has nannies and cooks and right this is a good point beca

in relation to the standards for impeachable offenses. because it's another piece of the constitutional puzzle that fits in that professor dershowitz set out. and it also shows the inherent flaw in the house managers theory of of use one - - abuse of power not if one accepts the view the impeachable offense has to be a defined crime. there is still the flaw with abuse of power that it is so malleable based on purely subjectived e. standards, that t does not provide an offense it is so malleable in effect it re-creates as the favorite one - - is the framers rejected and professor dershowitz explained. the second point that i want to make is that how do we tell under the house manager standard what the motive is and when is there are the motive cracks how do we know what is in present - - and the presidents head because it is inherently difficult to prove what we are talkingg about they are talk about perfectly lawful action within the constitutional authority but they want to make it impeachable for the wrong idea and the president had.bl

-- standard-setting bodies. we all know by -- by now the potential concerns associated with technology that we can't fully trust. by ensuring we have representation on essential standard-setting bodies, such as the international organization for standardization, we will have a seat at the table to help guide these policies in a helpful and secure direction. as many of my colleagues in this body would agree, a forward-leaning effort in this space will -- will have positive effects long down the line. i want to thank my colleagues on the energy and commerce committee for their work on this, and i urge all of my colleagues to support the underlying legislation. madam speaker, thank you, and i yield back. mr. latta: madam speaker, we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. doyle: i reserve. you're ready to close? mr. latta: i have one more speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the

they don't have a standard that defines a specific offense, they don't have a standard that defines incoherence terms that are going to be identifiable what the offenses are. so they just add on and it's got to be recognizably wrong they say they're doing this to resolve attention, they call it within the constitution. which as they point out and this is quoting from the report, the structure of the constitution including its prohibition on bills of attainder and ex post facto clause implies impeachable offenses should not come as a surprise. that's exactly what professor dershowitz pointed out and everything about the terms of the constitution , speaking of anoffense and the conviction , that all crimes should be tried by jury, they all talk about impeachment in thosecriminal offense terms . but attention here is it within the constitution, between the house managers definition which lacks any coherent definition of an offense that would catch people by surprise and the constitution, that the tension they're trying to resolve is between their malleable standards that face no clear offense and

that's above the environmental standards in force in europe. and not all females are products that are ending destructors. not all females are aren't due to regular human activity you know these are chemicals used in the textile industry. have you seen similar levels of not all females before in your career. never. can the water be used in farming no no it shouldn't be used for your occasions. how about washing or washing food. no it's really to septic each the water is one fouled us so what should we do if we don't have a choice we're dependent on this water. they need any lives here and ask what they can do to use the water anyway because they don't have a choice. at least boil it and react such unaided re area to it as a cools down and you need to decant it because it will have particle suspended in it and so at least boil it. in my main advice is to not drink it. some of the beauty i'm sad for myself and the residents along the tar on it. because the victims of this pollution don't know anything about the degree of danger they are exposed t

differ from a policy standard? >> certainly, technical standards can be used by policymakers. so in this case, a determination of a policy that was predicated algorithmscation of that are based on their performance characteristics is -- would be one example of that. from a policy perspective of what to do or what not to do with face recognition technology, that is something we would support with scientific data, but not with policy proclamations. >> let me ask you this. is this the right agency to develop governmentwide policy? sir.don't think so, what is the company's role in developing acme standards for -- accurate standards for facial recognition technology? >> our role is in evaluating the accuracy and in particular, the appropriate measurements to make. these measurements did not exist. we worked with the community to develop a set of technical standards for not just the measurement itself, but how to measure these things, including the reporting of false positives , false negatives and the very detailed defi

that is the standard. rep. scott: how long is the americans with how long has the americans with disabilities act been around? ms. bakst: since 1990, and amended in 1998 with bipartisan support. in all the states that we have worked with and legislators, everybody says this is going to provide clarity for hr because they know what reasonable accommodations >> and undue hardships mean. they are already doing this in the ada context. rep. scott: if someone is unable to perform the essential elements of a job, even without accommodation, what happens? ms. bakst: if someone is unable to perform under pwfa under the american with disabilities act. they are not deemed qualified and they are typically put out on leave. >> miss wilbur, can you remind us what the value is of having one federal standard, you have a law in kentucky and a different in ohio, who what would be >> the value of one federal standard? >> we work in a global economy. louisville is very fortunate to have corporate headquarters based in our region

, not only here in the united states but across the world, in fact, setting standards for the natural gas and oil operations have been the core program of a api in first 100 years we adopted more than 100 standards. just how far our efforts reach even though in regions that don't produce natural gas or oil. it's a reminder that our impact extends far beyond that of any single industry or group, every citizen stands to gain when energy is more affordable and produce cleaner here in the united states. our energy future can unite democrats, republicans and independents alike and that is the spirit of everything we do at api, it's clear that these issues won't be solved on social media in floor speeches or with political pledges, they deliver very little. it takes hard work to develop affordable solutions to meet demand for cleaner energy while addressing the risks of climate change but together we can do it. wherever the future of energy is at stake, whenever, people doubt the value of natural gas and oil, wherever our commitment to worker safety and environmental safety is questioned, y

next to standard chartered jose phenol -- standard chartered's hose even now -- standard vinalsred'sd bloomberg's sonali basak. this is bloomberg. ♪ ♪ marketsiggest risk for are two types of things. one is u.s. domestic politics, and the second is the black swan effects that can happen. >> so it wouldn't be a surprise if we saw market setbacks at certain moments during 2020. >> what could derail the markets is a radical change in monetary policy, be it on the back of inflation, or an external event that could trigger disruption. >> we just had an incident, for example, in iraq. i was watching television. almost everyone was declaring world war iii starting. >> i have one potential concern, which is iraq. >> i think the more divide you have not just in the u.s. come about around the world, the more uncertainty you have. >> but it doesn't feel like the pieces are in place for a substantial market correction, unless there is something meaningfully different in the current shape of that global economic and geopolitical pitcher. haslinda: some of the big names we have been talking to here

some not even that standard .o it is simply enough evidence that there's an accusation can be made, it is definitely a lower standard than the standard that have to be met you're on a trial for an ultimate verdict. the constitution in terms of a conviction inthe senate . and as both professor dershowitz and judge starr pointed out in their comments, everywhere in the constitution that there's any mention of impeachment it is spoken of in terms of the criminal law. the offenses that define the jurisdiction for the senate sitting as a court of impeachment are treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors. the constitution speaks ofa conviction upon being convicted in the senate . it speaks of all crimes being tried by jury except in cases of impeachment. again suggesting notions of the criminal law and as we pointed out in our trial memorandum , all these textual references make it clear that the standards of criminal law should apply in the trial certainly to the extent of the burden and standard of proof to be

there isn't a standard. and it's violating a fundamental premise of the system of justice that you have to have noted what is wrong. you have to know to be offense. it has to be the defined offense in advance and the way to try to resolve this is to say in addition to the definition, high crimes and misdemeanors involved the conduct that is recognizably wrong to a reasonable person. the constitutionally vague standard they don't have a standard that defines the specific offense of the standard that really defined in coherent terms what is going to be identifiable with the offenses are so they just add that it's got to be recognizably wrong. they say that they areth doing this to resolve the tension because it's within the constitution, because they point out, and this is quoting from the report structure of the constitution including the prohibition on the bills and the ex post facto clause employed to they shouldn't come as a surprise. and that is exactly what alan dershowitz pointed out. in the constitutio

we need that kind of open standard in mobility so everybody can build together and not have a fractured ecosystem. and there are all kinds of ways that governments can misuse the data. and we could conceivably make things happen and that can't move as fast as richer people for example. and then to discriminate against certain types of people because they don't provide the economic return. so what you want is an audit so that the algorithms are fair. with net neutrality it is related to the audits but the idea is everybody should have equal access to the mobility to move around. >> have you found already and equality with mobility? >> i think it is full but to have transit deserts where you can't get public transit to go to a job interview or a school and that we could use this next generation to provide more opportunities because mobility deserts because the rent is low because it such a pain to get anywhere. there are places that would be fine so if you have a system whether car share or bike share or metro to have access and more areas of the city it would have a big effect on the rea

not a double standard for justice in the senate, but one standard, the true standard, the standard that's been articulated eloquently by democrats over and over again in the clinton proceedings. that's the standard that's right. that's the standard that we ask forwardless of political party. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. chief justice? >> the senator from maine. >> i'm sending a question to the desk. >> thank you. senator king asks the president's counsel would it be permissible for a president to inform the prime minister of israel that he was holding congressional appropriated military aid unless the prime minister promised to come to the united states and publicly charge his opponent with anti-semitism in the midst of an election campaign? >> mr. chief justice and senator, thank you for the question, but the question really has nothing to do with this case. i mean, it seems to be trying to get at the most extreme hypothetical related to a misinterpretation of what professor dershowitz was saying the other night. it's totally irrelevant here. what -- the charges that have bee

standard. the golden you may not agree with that. the testimony will be relevant and i will put in the scale in favor of impeachment. we can say they should have gotten a redaction by redaction. take the unredacted report and go through and make those determinations. you don't think that runs into the walter nixon problem? >> again, understand the court saying it is not interested in this argument, but i think if this goes to a high -- higher there isat will be -- no reason why we should be putting courts in a position at all, but going to undertake this endeavor, but perhaps with guidelines we will argue about a getrict court, you don't everything, you have to show a and not geted need them grand jury information. >> how long would that take? know.on't i think that would be up to the district court. >> i guess i'm not clear to what the district court does. the community says your honor, it is relevant. >> the whole notion that the district court cannot control the senate trial or control documents ordered to be released, this is a q

is this just standard practice in the industry?starting a year and a half our first several federal consultant to help us spend time in washington educating federal officials on who we are as a company, how we go about our business practices. we use consultants at the state level for the same purposes. was used toase it help procure a contract, right? >> it was used to educate any of those involved about who we are as a company, the values we hold come and how we conduct our business. >> ok. did you also get involved in making finance campaign contributions? >> no. >> do you guys? >> no. >> you do spend money on the lobbying side? >> yes. >> at the state and local level? >> correct. >> our involvement in logging has been minimal, primarily to help us the educated in certain jurisdictions. >> ok. i'm curious about whether each of your companies engaged in adversarial testing on your voting systems. >> we have in the past. it is something we are looking to expand in the future. >> we do routinely. we have hired third parties to do pe

it's about raising everybody else to our standards and take action when they fall short thank you to senator brown we will hear from him and his leadership and while he and i have our names on this package i can look right down the row literally to senator carper and all of these colleagues who contributed to this package and i know a number of republicans with these issues as well i want to wrap up with comments something nobody talked about with the first nafta when that came up that is technology and digital trade. that was not part of the original nafta because basically it did not exist when nafta was first negotiated. everybody in this room carried a smart phone that would met the definition of a supercomputer in the early 19 nineties. but with rules with digital trade it remains stuck in the mindset of decades ago and that is a problem today because the internet now shifts the 21st century. technology and digital trade are right at the center of a modern economy with millions of good paying jobs in our country and most important technology is woven into every major american in

it is a gold standard. you may not agree with that. >> if the report said. >> there is a close question, witness xyz's testimony, i will put a thumb on the sale and say in favor of impeachment which she did with everything and we could say they should have done a redaction by redaction basis. >> your point is what she needs to do if you lose on the judicial exception issue is take the unredacted report and go through and make the determination. that runs into the walter next in problem. >> it may depend on the walter next and problem. i understand the court to be thing it's not interested in this argument but that is why the premise of this case is mistaken. if this case goes to a higher court that would be the lead argument that there is no reason we ought to be putting district court's in this position at all but if we are going to undertake this, sensitive to those concerns with guidelines we will argue about in district court, district court at a minimum, you need to show a particularized need and a gro

>> if their argument is a particular needs standard -- it has to be. particular needs standard place the district court in position of being the evidentiary gate keeper for a senate trial. if that's the conclusion we come to then it does raise profound questions. >> that's not the conclusion the court has to reach. i know you want us to say it that way but it wouldn't be necessary if we were to reject your argument. frame it that way. we don't know what evidence would come forth as a result of an order that says someone shall comply with the subpoena. >> right. >> then they appear. refuse to testify. exerting privilege. et cetera. who knows where it would go. so we don't get into that. if we accept the committee's argument. that's what i'm trying to get at. everyone wants to push us into this political battle and in some instances they may be great but i don't think necessarily it means just because the court makes a decision, doesn't mean different sides won't view it as supporting their position. but that's a i. issue entirely. you don't think this c

public l sets basic health standards in c.b.p. care uch as health screening, nutrition, water, sanitation, hygiene, and reporting requirements and makes sure have essentials such as tooth brushes, diapers, baby formula. this bipartisan bill was blocked from consideration in the senate, these standards of families hildren and are not currently law, and the recent c.b.p. medical directive short. it fails to outline proper care.tarian standards of this is why the senate must take up and pass the bipartisan bill, the humanitarian standards for individuals in c.b.p. custody c.b.p.'s nsure treatment of children and families is consistent with our the can values and principles of basic human dignity and prevent children custody andnder the responsibility of c.b.p. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to celebrate he 150th anniversary of hickory, north carolina. adoll fuss shu -- adolphus created the to

that's the clean fuel standard. we need what the rest of the west coast has already built, a clean fuel standard that calls upon the oil and gas industries to give washington consumers cleaner fuels. let me just say this. washingtonians deserve cleaner fuels and i want to make sure that they get them. that standard, all up and down the west coast has been in place for years now. it's had little impact on fuel cost and significant impact for carbon emissions. there's good news here, we already have a lot of the cleanest transportation fuels you can find. we have some of the cleanest electricity in the community including hydro power and wind power and we're creating clean biofuels. a story, klickitat county pud implemented in advance one of the first nitrogen removals in the world. it allows them to scrub methane from the landfill on roosevelt that otherwise pollutes the planet, they put into a pipeline and ship it to california where it replaces dirty and dangerous diesel instruction. this is an eastern washington e

the standards being used matter.ory options is to have requirements that say government use have to be evaluated or have been ranked by some external objective tester that has clear transparency into what the standards were and how would was measured and how it was done. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas is now recognized for questions. >> facial recognition is extremely important and viable for our government. places like border patrol in law enforcement. at the same time, there is also no question that this technology allows for any individual to be identified in public spaces be it through the private sector or government entities. therein lies the potential problem and grave concern for many people, both in the private sector or government should bare the responsibility of individual privacy and data security. i am not exactly where this question is best directed. any of you, jump in here. let's start with the private sector. are there companies that are using facial recognition technology.

different from policy standard? >> technical standards can be used by policymakers. in this case, that determination of a policy that was predicated on identification of algorithms that are based on their performance characteristics would be one example of that. from a policy perspective of what to do or whatnot to do with face recognition technology, that's something we would support with scientific data but not with policy proclamations. >> let me ask you this. is this the right agency to develop government wide policy? >> i don't think so, sir. i don't think that's a natural -- >> what is gdeveloping accuracy standards for facial recognition? >> our role in evaluating accuracies and in particular one of the things that we developed over the last 20 years is the appropriate measurements to make the these measurements did not exist. how to measure these things including the reporting false positivities and negatives of what those constitutes. >> i understand the security aligns u.s. chambers of commerce released fa

of living the standard of living in america available to. many low income workers but also retirees is way too difficult to achieve a standard of living that they were used to when they went there to fight in the 1960 s. and 1970 s. we left vietnam in 1975 well one of them is john rockhold he's a navy vet and he served in vietnam in the war and now he lives there so he was a fighter he was fighting to bring them capitalism and now he's gone there because they're able to deliver all the things that matter and life for a cheaper price than america can so it was worth it that whole war in vietnam because it secured retirement for americans in the year 2020 they can get a good standard of living and affordable health care so. we shouldn't feel too bad about it the loss was worth it for sure had we won this would not be an option for john rockwall he lives there now he lives on the 20th floor of a condo building for an apartment he bought 425-0000 has like 4 bedrooms he has a wife kid he has nannies and cooks and right this is a good point becaus

some not even that standard .o it is simply enough evidence that there's an accusation can be made, it is definitely a lower standard than the standard that have to be met you're on a trial for an ultimate verdict. the constitution in terms of a conviction inthe senate . and as both professor dershowitz and judge starr pointed out in their comments, everywhere in the constitution that there's any mention of impeachment it is spoken of in terms of the criminal law. the offenses that define the jurisdiction for the senate sitting as a court of impeachment are treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors. the constitution speaks ofa conviction upon being convicted in the senate . it speaks of all crimes being tried by jury except in cases of impeachment. again suggesting notions of the criminal law and as we pointed out in our trial memorandum , all these textual references make it clear that the standards of criminal law should apply in the trial certainly to the extent of the burden and standard of proof to be

is definitely ahe lower standard for the ultimate verdict. speaking in terms of a conviction in the senate as professor dershowitz pointed out in their comments , everywhere in the constitution is in terms of criminal law that defined the jurisdiction with the court of impeachment is treason and bribery in high crimes and misdemeanors. with the conviction in the senate speaks of all crimes tried by a jury except in cases of impeachment again suggesting notions of criminal law. and as we pointed out in the trial memorandum all of these contextual references, made it clear that standards of criminal law should apply in the trial to the extent of the burden and standard ofnd proof to be carried by the house managers which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. it is veryy clear there is not any requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt simply for the house to vote because of impeachment. there is a high standard as we have pointed out in the trial memorandum of the mere accusation comes here with no presumption of regularity at all in its fav

they went from the highest level of constitutional text into a middle standard. they have been chipping away for 25 years. many states have two or three abortion providers. some states have only one. we are done with the days of chipping away. this court is going to take more dramatic action. lana: catherine, i'm curious if you have a response to that point and your thoughts about the chipping away versus the complete overturning. catherine: sure. first of all, i don't know how quickly the court may take action on this. we do know that most years, certainly about half of the years, plus, since roe, we have seen the court take up a case on abortion. we have seen, in large part, chipping away for close to 50 years now. that really indicates how unsettled roe is. it indicates that it is unsettled for the court, that the court has to keep finding new bases to uphold the core tenants of roe. , while disagreeing with that original premise, with that idea of looking towards the medical history and the medical legal history. when you go back to 1990, to the casey case, w