Word: proved
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1970-1979
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...compliance was not before the court. The Justices, operating on the longstanding presumption of acquiescence to their rulings, were properly more interested in the fundamental legal issues. They showed their interest by barraging the three attorneys with nearly 350 questions. Since the heaviest burden rested on St. Clair to prove the Sirica order invalid, the most provocative questions were aimed at the President's lawyer. In the process, St. Clair sometimes seemed trapped in the illogic of his position. His major claims...
...summation to the jury, Assistant Special Prosecutor William Merrill said that it was not necessary to prove that Ehrlichman had ordered a breakin. It was sufficient to show that he had approved a covert operation to get the information. William S. Prates, Ehrlichman's chief defense counsel, indignantly objected. "They're trying to make you the jury believe that the word covert is an illegal operation. It doesn't mean illegal...
...committee failed in what had been a primary purpose of the Rebozo investigation: to establish a definite link between Rebozo's expenditures on the President's behalf and the $100,000 campaign contribution from Billionaire Howard Hughes. The report alleges but does not prove that, contrary to Rebozo's sworn testimony, he did not leave the Hughes contribution intact in a safe-deposit box for three years before returning it to a Hughes representative in June 1973. As previously reported, the President's former lawyer, Herbert Kalmbach, told the committee that Rebozo had told him that...
...this very courthouse there was recently a charge of deliberate obstruction of justice against a former prosecutor, the Attorney General of the United States [John N. Mitchell]. The government or the lawyers who levied that charge failed to prove it. I am not aware of any suggestion that they be disciplined for that. It seems...
...list is intended neither as an endorsement nor as TIME'S version of "The Top 200 Americans." It is a fallible selection, a sampling to suggest the great diversity of the country's abilities. Any list maker runs the risk that some of his choices may prove to be eccentric and some of his omissions unforgivable. But that seems a risk worth taking if it helps start a debate about who the future leaders are and what leadership really means, and to demonstrate that there may be cause for hope in a time of deep concern...