I don’t understand why that wasn’t used. Congress has clearly provided for what was going on. It seems to be that that procedure should have been followed.

One case does not a whole litigation strategy make.

It depends on how extensively she was involved in policy making in her five years in the White House.

very articulate but sort of reserved, almost kind of shy. And so I think he is a very likable sort of person.

His testimony could turn the jury against him.

The question is, can they have their cake and eat it too?

It seems to me that it would be relevant to a person’s case. I would expect the government to say that it is highly sensitive material, but we have legal mechanisms to balance the national...

The next question is the New England Journal flap. It seems to erode their credibility.

Most people predicted this but it wasn’t a forgone conclusion.

It seems the government is somewhat vindicated.

Negligence is much easier to prove; it’s the failure to exercise reasonable care. Willful misconduct is a much higher standard. You must intentionally misbehave. … The high standard would clearly discourage many suits.

The government is going to lose a very good ruling to avoid having this go before the Supreme Court.

I don’t think anybody today sees a reason for a filibuster, but they may after the hearing if the answers are troubling to them or they feel they haven’t gotten the answers to important questions.

The juries you draw in federal courts are more favorably inclined to institutional defendants.

It’s too soon to say Merck has momentum. Many people felt the Irvin case was a weak case to begin with. It was a short-term usage case.

It’s very difficult for Specter to thread the needle, because of all the obligations he has, … There’s substantial pressure on him because of the issue of reproductive freedom.

If he had not testified, it seems likely the jury would have come in in his favor.

By and large, the court is very deferential to this administration and others before it.