and darrow is going to argue back. the state has a right to say what's taught in schools within reason. and he says evolution has been taught in tennessee for years. and then along come legislatures who say science interferes of their religious beliefs. so you can't teach it anymore. and he's going to say, don't copy this down. just let me read you some quotes from some of bryan darrow's oration. this law makes the bible the yardstick to measure every man's intellect, to measure every man's learning. he says scopes isn't on trial. civilization is on trial. the prosecution is opening the doors for a reign of bigotry equal to anything in the middle ages, where law brought us this law brought us back to the 16th century, when bigots burned men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. the state of tennessee has no right to teach. the bible is the divine book. then, then that the koran is one or the book of mormon, or the book of confucius or the essays of emerson. and he specific

but many would argue that nate _ about. but many would argue that nato and _ about.d argue that nato and its growth, - about. but many would argue that nato and its growth, itsl that nato and its growth, its presence, is one reason why russia invaded ukraine initially because it was looking, ukraine was looking at hoping tojoin nato, something russia did not want. hoping to join nato, something russia did not want.— russia did not want. that's true. that's _ russia did not want. that's true. that's true _ russia did not want. that's true. that's true that - russia did not want. that'sl true. that's true that russia has been very clear particularly pertinent about his desire to not see nato expand —— especially vladimir putin. there are continuing to debate about whether there was a formal agreement. it is clear there was never a formal signed agreement that nato would not expand and i'd argue the more important point is that ukraine is and has been for a very long time a sovereign state. and russia itself as the government has signed multiple international agreements

argued treatise. i only have a problem with the title, so but i don't have a problem. i have a problem explaining it to other people. so i'm going to explain it you as well. we win. they lose, we win. they lose. republican foreign policy cold. so let me take the win we win. they lose part in january this 1977, four years prior to becoming president president reagan bluntly stated in a conversation with richard valle, and i think i have this right, his basic expectation in relation to the cold war quote my, idea of american policy toward the soviet union is simple and some would say simplistic. he said it is this we win and they lose. so it's the good guys win, the bad guys lose. i get it. some have interpreted resistance. republicans win, democrats lose america wins. everybody else loses. this is not what this title says. this title says good guys when bad guys should lose. so i embrace that. and then i've also stumbled over republican foreign policy. so the american council is nonpartisan. sometimes

daniel said was to provide safety for jews and clearly, and i would argue it's almost impossible to argue against this. it is not safe for jews now, and i would argue long before october 7 and certainly the last 6 months even got more on safe figures within his role. and i would argue in the global diatra, this is the problem is ralph faces. and with that international pressure, which i think will start to build b u. s. in london, and not going to be pushing problems in di guys. but southern states will then sanctions and china employees riley sold is on trial. and the companies that will happen, or at least attempts move that to happen. and this is where the, the game can change. all right, well, we have run out of time, so we're going to have to leave the conversation there. thanks so much to our guests. daniel levy anthony lowenstein and getting and leaving hello and thank you to for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website obviously, or dot com. and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash ag inside story.

left, but we, argus ourselves, are alive for argush, more alive than all the living in essence, andliterally two words. we don’t have much time, i understand, this is probably a separate big topic, but in general, that is , there is a scheme, how to do it correctly so that the ministry of finance is satisfied, because the ministry of finance does not work for itself, it works for the budget, and oil companies, respectively, those who supply oil to world markets, there is some kind of balance that would suit everyone, it exists in nature in general, or someone will always be dissatisfied, but well, in principle, the option that i have already mentioned needs to be oriented. taxation, well, and a small remark about how the ministry of finance works, based on this discount it is already necessary to build , yes, it works, but what is called, it looks for money not where it is, but under the streetlight, well as in the joke, yes, that is, the easiest way is to withdraw money from a limited number of companies that are transparent. it’s clear how they work, why take money from other indu

, argue.ty boat beats with the silence of the night, and the shore is night. the fires do not go out, the night fires do not go out, the fires do not go out over the eternal river, the fires argue, the fires argue with the silence of the night, the empty boat beats , the shore at night, they were flipped over, knocking them off their feet, the cruel nordost, their oaks... idolized the mountain of water, rehearsed at the mach warmth, patter, on the ground in the night they burned. their fires, the fires do not go out, the fires at night, the fires do not touch the eternal river, the fires argue, the fires argue, with the night the empty boat beats with silence on the shore at night. you dreamed, you dreamed, you dreamed of finding your ideal in life, you finally found what you were looking for, but you lost me, but me, the novel has a sad ending, the ideal didn’t become an ideal, that’s all, you alone, me. .. alone, between us and the sky is a wall, but i don’t cry, but i don’t cry, even if i d

because they argued, they say, the king sent people here for eviction who did not agree, they argued,h a peninsula, dispute - this is a peninsula, only with one... lake, and they also argued because there was little land, and that too, they also argued for every piece of land, sporists, in a dispute the truth is born, we have a completely different mentality, if you work like that, work, if you sing, sing, having fun means having fun . well, if god forbid and some kind of grief, then he also helps each other with all his talaqa, at that time in the winter they tied the solona onto a seine, a small seine, each person, if there are about five or seven people there, that means everyone tied 5-10 m, they came , went fishing, untied each one. dry a piece of the house so that has been preserved longer, we are restoring the old venter, as we call it, it used to be possible to catch both fish and crayfish, now for the museum, what i am restoring, what i am doing new, there are big plans. we will combine business with pleasure, we will warm our sides so as not to get sick, and we will cook foo

but i would 1st of all argue that's been the very 1st statement. our foreign minister a gave after the terroristic attack. on the 7th of october, before she flew off to this row, she made clear, of course, this row has the right to defend itself. but within the framework of the international law, that means from the base of international law, it has the right to defend itself. but it also gives the framework and therefore the older responsibility israel has to take on if it defends itself. and i think this is very important, of course, i do understand this to onst, and this is to a certain amount and not what people might hope for how the suffering of the palestinians is to see for the very 1st statement. i would argue this was, of course, the response to the risk attacks on the stuff stuff from tolbert and after dad's i would say yes, it's incredibly important that we see and we talk about the new main suffering. the philistines have to take on and we have to discuss it very. i don't want to say carefully, but in the metro or in a serious matter t

is there actually arguing this? i mean, we've seen trump tried to instruct his legal team in the room to get up and say something to the judge? >> yeah, absolutely. i mean, it any lawyer who's ever represented him or even contemplated is well aware of what a challenging client he is. but if you talk to sources in and around the trump legal team, they believe that trump maybe has learned i'm license from the past three civil cases that we covered here in new york about his behavior. so we're getting more updates from our team. i'll let you know as we get them, but it's clear that one thing so far, the one evidentiary issue that caused trump to bolt up lean and look at the screen and start conversing with this lawyer. michael cohen surprising to no one including michael cohen who knew he would be a big star in this case. paula reid will continue with updates. lenin moreno, obviously, as we're waiting to see what this jury selection looks like, it gets underway, still sorting through what the jury is going to be able t

it's almost impossible to argue against this. it is not safe for jews now, and i would argue long before october 7 and certainly in the last 6 months, even got more on the safe figures within his role. and i would argue in the global dice for this is the problem, is ralph faces and with that international pressure, which i think will start to build b u. s. in london and not going to be pushing problems in vi guys, but southern states will min sanctions and china forties riley sold is on trial and the companies that will happen, or at least attempt to move for that to happen. and this is where the, the game can change. all right, well, we have run out of time, so we're going to have to leave the conversation there. thanks so much to our guests, daniel levy, anthony lowenstein, and gideon levy. hello. and thank you to for watching, you can see the program again any time by visiting our website obviously, or dot com. and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash a inside story. you can a

daniel said was to provide safety for jews and clearly, and i would argue it's almost impossible to argue against this. it is not safe for jews now, and i would argue long before october 7 and certainly in the last 6 months, even got more on safe figures within his role. and i would argue in the global dice for this is the problem, israel sizes. and with that international pressure, which i think will start to build the u. s. in london, and not going to be pushing problems in di guys. but southern states will then sanctions and china employees riley sold is on trial. and the companies that will happen, or at least attempts move that to happen. and this is where the, the game can change. all right, well, we have run out of time, so we're going to have to leave the conversation there. thanks so much to our guests. daniel levy anthony lowenstein and getting and leaving hello and thank you to for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website obviously, or dot com. and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash ag inside s

but i would 1st of all argue that's been the very 1st statement. our foreign minister a gave after the terroristic attack. on the 7th of october, before she flew off to this row, she made clear, of course, this row has the right to defend itself. but within the framework of the international law, that means on the base of international law, it has the right to defend itself, but it also gives the framework and therefore the older responsibility israel has to take on if it defends itself. and i think this is very important, of course, i do understand this to on st and this is to a certain amount and not what people might hope for how the suffering of the palestinians is to see for the very 1st statement. i would argue this was, of course, the response to the risk attacks on the stuff stuff from tober and after dad's i would say yes, it's incredibly important that we see and we talk about the new main suffering. the philistines have to take on and we have to discuss, it's very, i don't want to say carefully, but in the metro are in a serious matter t

daniel said was to provide safety for jews and clearly, and i would argue almost impossible to argue against this. it is not safe for jews now, and i would argue long before october 7 and certainly in the last 6 months, even got more on safe figures within his role. and i would argue in the global dice for this is the problem israel faces. and with that international pressure, which i think will start to build b u. s. in london, and not going to be pushing problems in di guys. but southern states will then sanctions in china, employees riley sold is on trial and the companies that will happen, or at least attempt to move for that to happen. and this is where the, the game can change. all right, well, we have run out of time. so we're going to have to leave the conversation there. thanks so much to our guests, daniel levy, anthony lowenstein, and getting and leaving. hello and thank you for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website obviously, or dot com. and for further discussion, go to our facebook page, that's facebook dot com, forward slash a inside

what is former president trump's legal team arguing here? >> former president trump's legal team is arguing that he is absolutely immune from criminal conversation over anything that can be considered his official actions while taken in office. it is a fairly sweeping argument to say the least. it was fully rejected by the d.c. circuit below. as we saw today at the supreme court, there is more receptiveness to the immunity claims that trump was making than perhaps many court watchers had anticipated, but basically it boils down to the idea that presidents can't operate if they are looking over their shoulder thinking about prosecutors coming down the road and charging them with criminal conspiracies after they leave office for continue controversial actions is essentially what it boils down to. a separation of powers and that the president is a unique office that should be cloak dmd this type of immunity so the president can make the the tough decisions that the president needs to make. >> how is the government responding? what are they sayi

trump has argued is designed to derail his campaign. >> this is done as election interference. everybody knows it. >> reporter: but today prosecutors said it is mr. trump who is guilty of election interference by paying off an adult film star to silence her before the 2016 election. telling the jury, "this case is about a criminal conspiracy to bury a story that could have cost him the presidency and then lying in his business records over and over again to cover it all up." the alleged scheme stretches back to 2015, a meeting at trump tower between mr. trump, his former fixer and attorney michael cohen, and david pecker, the long-time publisher of the "national enquirer." this is where prosecutors say the trio hatched a plot for the tabloid to buy and bury any damning stories about mr. trump, a tactic known as catch and kill. prosecutors say it was the release of the "access hollywood" tape that turned the campaign upside down in october of 2016. lead prosecutor matthew colangelo reading mr. trump's most incendiary remarks from that video for the jury today, arguing the former

trump's lawyers arguing he has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. lawyers for special counsel jack smith, who is prosecuting trump for those efforts, arguing that presidents are not above the law if they commit crimes. the justices acknowledging the case before them is not just about former president donald trump, but also about future presidents and the presidency itself. one critical question they're considering, whether a president can have immunity for an official act, but not his private conduct. abc's terry moran leads us off at the supreme court. >> reporter: at the heart of this case, donald trump's unprecedented claim. his lawyer telling the justices that presidents can never face criminal prosecution for anything they do in office that can be linked to their official duties. absolute immunity. >> without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. >> reporter: the sheer magnitude of that claim hung over the courtroom. several justices acknowledging the stakes. >> this case h

but when it comes to to details, i do argue as well. that's um, most of what's being brought up, but i would rather say is probably based on, on the misunderstanding and that this does not really hold of the accusations. and i think the, the, the, the presentation by our government yesterday, yesterday in the court, i'll make clear that we are taking our responsibility in terms of humanitarian assistance. very serious. um, but also our, um, well, well, when it comes to to how we control our exports, etc. that this is very well controlled. but still of course you need to take it serious. it is after all, a pace in front of the i. c j. um, but i am pretty much sure that uh there there is a clear path where it is going to go. if i could just figure this out a little bit today as well, what exactly was misunderstood? i must think mainly when it comes to, to human cherry and aids and the, uh, which is often perceived. and then i'll reaction to, to the, the facts or the, these varieties brought out that certain members of the where in both th

but i would 1st of all argue that's been the very 1st statement. our foreign minister a gave after the terroristic attack. on the 7th of october, before she flew off to israel, she made clear, of course, this row has the right to defend itself. but within the framework of the international law, that means from the base of international law, it has the right to defend itself. but it also gives the framework and therefore the older responsibility israel has to take on if it defends itself. and i think this is very important, of course, i do understand this to once, and this is to a certain amount and not what people might hope for how the suffering of the palestinians is to see for the very 1st statement. i would argue this was of course, the response to the risk attacks on the stuff stuff from tober and after dad's i would say yes, it's incredibly important that we see and we talk about the new main suffering. the palest indians have to take on. and we have to discuss, it's very, i don't want to say carefully, but in the metro or in a serious matter

to argue that the most recent attacks, which included photographs, were necessary and appropriate in the current environment is farcical. the judge found that, quote, there exists no less restrictive means to prevent such risk. judge merchan gave donald trump this morning , defendant is hereby put on notice that he will forfeit any statutory right he may have to access juror names if he engages in any contact that threatens the safety and integrity of the jury

. >> reporter: arguing arguing the impeachment by house republicans was unconstitutional. >> reporter: arguing the impeachment by house republicans was unconstitutional. >> to validate this gross abuse by the house would be a grave mistake and could set a dangerous precedent for the future. >> reporter: but republicans blasting the move to not hold a trial, arguing democrats are defying hundreds of years of senate precedent. >> this process must not be abused. it must not be short-circuited. history will not judge this moment well. >> reporter: house republicans accuse mayorkas of willfully ignoring immigration laws with a record 9.3 million migrants crossing into the u.s. during the biden administration. mayorkas calls the accusations, baseless. democrats say, there's no impeachable offense. meanwhile, house speaker mike johnson facing off with his own party tonight releasing his plan for aid to ukraine, israel, and taiwan in three separate packages. combined, the proposal would provide $95 billion in funding and is very similar to the already passed senate bill that bundled the plan

because they argued, they say, the king sent here for eviction, people who disagreed, argued, they were sent to such a peninsula, it’s a disputed peninsula, only on one side you can enter the village, all around there is water, the swamps were impassable, a lake , and they also argued because there was little land, and that too for each. a bunch of land also argued, sporists, in a dispute the truth is born, we have a completely different mentality, if you work, then work, if you sing, sing, have fun, then have fun, but if god forbid, grief somehow, also with the whole talaqa, helps each other. at that time, in the winter they tied a tallow onto a seine, a small seine, each person, if there were about five or seven people there, that means everyone tied 5-10 m, they came, went fishing, untied each piece of their house, dried it so that it would last longer, we restore the old , what they call us. previously, they could catch both fish and crayfish, but now for the museum, what i’m restoring, what i’m doing new, there are big plans here. we will combine business with pleasure, we will war

the da is arguing that donald trump is a criminal. so this is not about some quarterbacking post election even though it relates to an election. it's not about that the case will involve politics only to go back to trumps criminal intent and again his lawyers may have defenses to this but there will be fascinating political observations in the service of proving that what the da says was clear criminal intent because they had a campaign criminal motive. we've heard about these reports of a total panic within the campaign as the indictment notes, there was a catalyst from that panic to then get the hush money payments first going toward stormy daniels and that was arranged by michael cohen. $130,000 to hide the story which was finished up three days after that access hollywood tape broke. indictment alleges that trump was hoping to drag it out so he would never have to pay daniels at all which, while misleading or disingenuous is not in itself any kind of crime. but again, it goes to criminal intent because he instructed michael, to la

and we are not only arguing how should we say that you should do it? not us. we are trying to also lead by example, more than one percent of g. d. p has gone out to a to ukraine so far. we're continuing the effort, of course, they need weapons and ammunition. they don't need promises and it's very concrete what they need. and we have a very concrete initiative now headed by the checks they have found the munition. now, it's up to the rest of us to help fund and pay the money to buy the ammunition and to physically deliver it to ukraine. let's talk about the nature of strategy and nature plans um, just 2 years ago, your name, but it's totally a complain bitterly that nato has planned for its defense was wholly inadequate because it involved allowing a potential russian to advance into the country with the aim of pushing it back, 6 months later on those plans, the parameters, the said estonia would be wiped off the map and the historic center of the capital raised to the ground is not the kind of plan nato device. so a lot fear as well. and um, let's look at the

and we are not only arguing how should we say that you should do it, not us. we are trying to also lead by example, more than one percent of g. d. p has gone out to a to ukraine. so far, we're continuing the effort. of course, they need weapons and ammunition. they don't need promises, and it's very concrete what they need. and we have a very concrete initiative now headed by the checks they have found the munition. now it's up to the rest of us to help fund and pay the money to buy the ammunition and to physically deliver it to ukraine. let's talk about the nature of strategy and nature plans um, just 2 years ago. your name, but it's totally a complain, bitterly that nato's plan for its defense was wholly inadequate because it involved allowing a potential rush in advance into the country with the aim of pushing it back 6 months later on those plans, the progress, the said estonia would be wiped off the map and the historic center of the capital raised to the ground is not the kind of plan nato device for a lot fear as well. and, um, let's look at the plans t

the un stop court argue that trimming support for israel does not violate international law. nicaragua accuse is germany of helping israel committed a legend, genocide in gaza. and the father of the so called god particle dies at age. 94 will look at the legacy of his peter higgs and how his discovery re shaped our understanding of the universe. the, i'm here until berlin, thank you very much for joining us. your p. europe's top human rights court has ruled in favor of a group of swiss pensioners who argue that their governments in action on climate change has put their lives at risk. as a landmark decision that could influence the legislation across europe and give a boost to activists who say their governments are feeling to tackle global warming . of these women have made climate history some 2500 swiss pensioners through their own government because its handling of the climate crisis put their health at risk . the european human rights courts and strossberg funds ruled in their favor. a landmark decision cementing the idea that governments clements in action can violate human right

he argued that the bows on help to bind the universe together by giving particles their mass decades later, his theory was proven by physicist working at the large hadron collider at sarah in switzerland. he was honored with a nobel prize for physics in 2013. to earlier i spoke to please, this is joseph ink and download from the university of california. you announced the discovery of the higgs bows on in 2012 with peter hicks in the audience. well, obviously it was a tremendously exciting moments and perhaps one of the biggest moments in our, in our field for many decades. and i wasn't absolutely certain that peter would be there until shortly before and we were just very happy that he could be there. i saw, i saw that you showed a little clip with him wanting xyz. he was very emotional at the time when we noticed the discovery. i was representing the cns experiment, which i show in the picture behind me here in the notes and them to you. it was worth attending the alice experiment. and together we both have very strong evidence for the particle that he propose almost half a century

also coming up on the program, german lawyers that the ones pop court argue that german support for israel does not violate international law. nicaragua accuses germany of helping is real commit electric genocide and gaza. and the father of the so called gun particle dies at $9044.00. look at the legacy of physicist peter higgs. and how is discovered we shift our understanding of the universe, the un here until berlin. thank you very much for joining us. europe's top human rights court has ruled in favor of a group of swiss pensioners who argue the governments in action on climate change has put their lives at risk. it's a landmark decision that could influence legislation across europe and give a boost to activists who say they are governments are feeling to tackle global warming. of these women have made climate history some 2500 swiss pensioners suit their own government because it's handling of the climate crisis put their health at risk. the european human rights question strossberg funds ruled in their favor. a landmark decision cementing the idea that governments clements in action

the right to argue against that position.in the u.s., free speech is lifted up to protect the speech of those who come from the right. it seems to be a value to protect a certain kind of speech. the rest of us are expected to simply shut up and be grateful. >> you said it is time for people to take democracy into their own hands. . and be more active you said it is no more about outsourcing to politicians but people taking responsibility for saving their country. how does not align with the being a representative democracy? we voted supposed to put people in power that represent our beliefs. >> we have to be better people. if we are going to be the leaders we are looking for, we have to become better people. when we become better people we send better people to washington, d.c. >> what does that mean? >> reach for higher forms of excellence. be clear about your commitment to justice without exception. justice is not just for you and your kin and your tribe, it applies to every human being. what i am suggesting is the students

hunt, the chancellor, to— argue it is time forjeremy hunt, the chancellor, to be _ argue it is timeancellor, to be there i use the word courageous _ the chancellor, to be there i use the word courageous and - the chancellor, to be there i use i the word courageous and increased defence _ the word courageous and increased defence spending _ the word courageous and increased defence spending to _ the word courageous and increased defence spending to at _ the word courageous and increased defence spending to at least - the word courageous and increased defence spending to at least 2.5%. the word courageous and increased. defence spending to at least 2.5% of gdp. defence spending to at least 2.5% of gdp after— defence spending to at least 2.5% of gdp after all— defence spending to at least 2.5% of gdp. after all when _ defence spending to at least 2.5% of gdp. after all when he _ defence spending to at least 2.5% of gdp. after all when he was - defence spending to at least 2.5% of gdp. after all when he was running. gdp. after all when he was running to be _ gdp. after all when he was r

i think she is arguing parliament she is arguing the parliament should judges. she is arguing the parliamentjudges. she is arguing the parliament showell, she's judges. she is arguing the parliament showell, she's arguing that >> well, she's arguing that parliament's devalued by parliament's been devalued by quite significant constitutional changes made . changes that blair made. >> our country has changed. absolutely. devolution changed the country. and i think that's that's a good reason. as power dispersed, i actually think it's working, he's working, not very well. people get no people. people have got to choose the governments they want. in wales, it's always labour and it's always nationalist at the moment. look the, the and i think, i think steve rotherham , think, i think steve rotherham, the metro mayor in liverpool is a really good example of somebody. i think andy street is to being a voice for their locality. andy burnham you see it, but we come back to it, but the but we come back to this, the labour party put through some constitutional changes reflected and, in changes which r

and we are not only arguing how should we say that you should do it, not us. we're trying to also lead by example, more than one percent of g. d. p has gone out to a to ukraine. so far, we're continuing the effort. of course, they need weapons and ammunition. they don't need promises, and it's very concrete what they need. and we have a very concrete initiative now headed by the checks they have found the munition. now it's up to the rest of us to help fund and pay the money to buy the ammunition and to physically deliver it to ukraine. let's talk about the nature of strategy and nato plans. um, just 2 years ago, your name. but sonya complain bitterly that nato's plan for its defense was wholly inadequate because it involved allowing a potential russian to advance into the country with the aim of pushing it back 6 months later on those plans, the parameters the said estonia would be wiped off the map and the historic center of the capitol raised to the ground is not the kind of plan nato device for a lot fear as well. and, um, let's look at the plans that we a

because they were arguing they say that the king sent people here for eviction, people who disagreed, - this is a peninsula, only on one side you can enter the village, and there is water all around. there were impassable swamps, a lake, and they also argued because there was little land, and that too, they also argued for every piece of land, sporists, in a dispute the truth is born, we have a completely different mentality, if you work, then work, if you sing, sing , to have fun means to have fun, but if god forbid there is some grief, then... also for everyone talakoy helps each other.

and we are not only arguing how should we say that you should do it, not us. we are trying to also lead by example, more than one percent of g. d. p has gone out to ukraine so far. we're continuing the effort. of course, they need weapons and ammunition. they don't need promises, and it's very concrete what they need. and we have a very concrete initiative now headed by the checks they have found the munition. now it's up to the rest of us to help fund and pay the money to buy the ammunition and to physically deliver it to ukraine. let's talk about the nature of strategy and nature plans um, just 2 years ago. your name, but it's totally a complain bitterly that nato has planned for its defense was wholly inadequate because it involves allowing a potential russian to advance into the country with the aim of pushing it back. 6 months later on those plans, the progress, the said estonia would be wiped off the map and the historic center of the capitol, raised to the ground, is not the kind of plan nato device for a lot fear as well. and um, let's look at the plan

and we are not only arguing how should we say that you should do it, not us. we're trying to also lead by example, more than one percent of g. d. p has gone out to a to ukraine. so far, we're continuing the effort. of course, they need weapons and ammunition. they don't need promises, and it's very concrete what they need. and we have a very concrete initiative now headed by the checks they have found the munition. now it's up to the rest of us to help fund and pay the money to buy the ammunition and to physically deliver it to ukraine. let's talk about the nature of strategy and nature plans um, just 2 years ago. your name, but it's totally a complain bitterly that nato's plan for its defense was wholly inadequate because it involves allowing a potential russian to advance into the country with the aim of pushing it back 6 months later on those plans, the parameters the said estonia would be wiped off the map and the historic center of the capitol raised to the ground is not the kind of plan nato device for a lot fear as well. and, um, let's look at the plans

and we are not only arguing how should we say that you should do it, not us. we are trying to also lead by example, more than one percent of g. d. p has gone out to a to ukraine. so far, we're continuing the effort. of course, they need weapons and ammunition. they don't need promises, and it's very concrete what they need. and we have a very concrete initiative now headed by the checks they have found the munition. now it's up to the rest of us to help fund and pay the money to buy the ammunition and to physically deliver it to ukraine. let's talk about the nature of strategy and nature plans um, just 2 years ago. your name, but it's totally a complain bitterly that nato's plan for its defense was wholly inadequate because it involved allowing a potential russian to advance into the country with the aim of pushing it back 6 months later on those plans, the parameters the said estonia would be wiped off the map and the historic center of the capitol raised to the ground is not the kind of plan nato device for a lot fear as well. and, um, let's look at the plan

is arguing donald trump is a criminal. this isn't about some later november quarterbacking post election even though this relates to an election. it's not about that. the case will involve politics only to go back to trump's criminal intent. again, his lawyers may have defenses to this, but there will be fascinating political observations in the service of proving what the d.a. says was trump's clear criminal intent because they had a campaign criminal motive. so we've heard about these reports of a total panic within the campaign as the indictment notes there was a catalyst from that panic to then get the hush money payments first going towards stormy daniels. that was arranged by now star witness michael cohen. 130 k to hide the story which was fin nushd up three days after that "access hollywood" tape broke. indictment alleges trump would drag it out so he never had to pay daniels at all which is misleading or disingenuous is not any type of crime. again, it goes to criminal intent because he instructed cohen to delay m

>> the prosecutor could argue yes because it depends.t just 2018, that one silly post, or has it continued is this because then he argues with a straight face, she can be fair and impartial. i think the judge has not granted cause because it was 2018 and if it wasn't horrific, like i will never support this man in life as opposed to just a joke about him, then she could say i could be fair and impartial. i would strike her if i'm the defense. >> she said because i'm in the room, i realize there's a higher duty. when you walk into a courtroom and realize that you have somebody's future in your hands, you can change their lives dramatically, even if you have strong feelings about that person, does the weight of that change you? does the weight of that fall down on maybe not all people? >> i think it does and i do believe that donald trump can get a fair and impartial jury in manhattan because you can, if you are a person you know, and you can say i'm a democrat, a republican, you take the oath that all the jurors once slegted and seated, s

and that's what the other side is arguing here. prohibit cities from enforcing these very basic camping laws. and that provision has never been held to apply to anything like this. it's all about what sorts of punishments government can impose. and we think that it's cruel to leave people on the streets in these conditions, we think that we need to intervene and we need to have the ability to keep public spaces safe and clean for everyone. and it's true homelessness is a complex policy xu these are policy decisions that need to be made on a local level, balancing all of the competing needs of our communities, the wrong answer would be to constitutionalize this right to camp. we've seen what that has meant all throughout the ninth circuit san francisco is under a federal injunction. other cities as well. so this is widespread problem okay. >> i can tell you're at the top of your game. i made it as a compliment. you're like on autopilot, i'm probably the warmup for those nine on monday. but what's the answer to my question is, is the

they are arguing that is obviously a direct contradiction of what prosecutors just got up and argued and i should note that as prosecutors were making their argument, they were saying that they don't believe the answer to trump violated his gag order right now. they believe is jail time, but they were saying that is an option. that is the result of a gag order. if any other regular person violated it, what todd blanche is arguing is that trump is responding to people like michael avanade and michael cohen and stormy daniels and allegations being made by them and they're saying that it's a political response, that it's not relevant to the case. and todd blanche is pushing back on what prosecutors had just said that putting maga in a post doesn't make it a political posts. instead, they were saying it makes get more ominous, potentially todd blink to saying, well, there's nothing that donald trump does. that is not devoid of politics here and saying that everything really does have a political tinge to it when it comes to the presumptive republican nominee. what we're told by reporters

they'll both arguing for. busy of humanitarian aid to go in, they both express the hope that israel will meet its commitments to allow more than monetary an aid and to gaza. as i also agree, those that have mazda as a stumbling block to getting a negotiated c spy or pause, and the ongoing conflict, ignoring is really intransigence in the matter. and on the issue of, honest israel, once again, complete agreement, both of us secretary of state and to the but he's part of the secretary saying that alms will continue to israel despite concerned among many, particularly here in the united states about the way in which these within this, are you so sit on the complete agreement between the 2 politicians at this news conference and the secretary of state made some interesting comments when i came to that alpha operation. because we heard earlier today is the prime minister of israel saying that he has a dates for the invasion, but the sector states saying that the us that hasn't been communicated to them. how are we

and we are not only arguing how should we say that you should do it, not us. we are trying to also lead by example, more than one percent of g. d. p has gone out to a to ukraine so far. we're continuing the effort, of course, they need weapons and ammunition. they don't need promises and it's very concrete what they need. and we have a very concrete initiative now headed by the checks they have found the munition. now, it's up to the rest of us to help fund and pay the money to buy the ammunition and to physically deliver it to ukraine. let's talk about the nature of strategy and nature plans um, just 2 years ago, your name, but it's totally a complain bitterly that nato has planned for its defense was wholly inadequate because it involved allowing a potential russian to advance into the country with the aim of pushing it back 6 months later on those plans, the parameters, the said estonia would be wiped off the map and the historic center of the capital raised to the ground is not the kind of plan nato device. so a lot fear as well. a. um, let's look at the p

and we are not only arguing how should we say that you should do it, not us. we are trying to also lead by example, more than one percent of g. d. p has gone out to a to ukraine. so far, we're continuing the effort. of course, they need weapons and ammunition. they don't need promises, and it's very concrete what they need. and we have a very concrete initiative now headed by the checks they have found the munition. now it's up to the rest of us to help fund and pay the money to buy the ammunition and to physically deliver it to ukraine. let's talk about the nature of strategy and nature plans um, just 2 years ago. your name, but it's totally a complain bitterly that nato has planned for its defense was wholly inadequate because it involved allowing a potential russian to advance into the country with the aim of pushing it back. 6 months later on those plans, the parameters, the said estonia would be wiped off the map and the historic center of the capitol raised to the ground, is not the kind of plan nato device for a lot fear as well. and um, let's look at t

and we are not only arguing how should we say that you should do it, not us. we are trying to also lead by example, more than one percent of g. d. p has gone out to a to ukraine so far. we're continuing the effort, of course, they need weapons and ammunition. they don't need promises and it's very concrete what they need. and we have a very concrete initiative now headed by the checks they have found the munition. now, it's up to the rest of us to help fund and pay the money to buy the ammunition and to physically deliver it to ukraine. let's talk about the nature of strategy and nature plans um, just 2 years ago, your name. but sonya complained bitterly that nato's plan for its defense was wholly inadequate because it involved allowing a potential russian to advance into the country with the aim of pushing it back 6 months later on those plans, the parameters the said estonia would be wiped off the map and the historic center of the capitol raised to the ground is not the kind of plan nato device, so a lot fear as well. and um, let's look at the plans that we

there is no good, they would argue, from impeding the surveillance program. that's exactly the argument that is being made in terms of passing this and keeping it without a warrant in this moment. host: fbi director christopher wray on capitol hill today, you can bet that he will be asked about the program and will probably bring it up himself. our coverage begins at 2 p.m. eastern time of the fbi director testifying about the agency, and likely this program as well. you can watch on c-span three and on our free mobile video app, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. portland, maine, independent line, darrell. caller: i just wanted to speak about the new act that's coming on. i heard all about president kamala harris and the irs and the vote coming down on this thing. i feel like reagan should be able to do this. [no audio] host: talking about the future of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, fisa, section 702 is the debate here in washington. republicans, 19 of them, blocked the house from moving forward on debating and voting on this legislation. what

he would argue it's not a question of arguing. i did what i thought was right. >> and you never felt any direct pressure from him on what investigations the doj you did not directly pressure may as i say, he was out there tweeting and doing things that were embarrassing and made it hard for me to run the department that sounds like pressure wasn't pressure. it was just i mean, for example, i had decided that we were going to not agree to a sentence on stone that was three times longer than normal. >> and i'd already decided that. and then he was tweeting about stone. so it just made it harder to make the decision because it looks like you were acting on roger stone's sentence. would they were just talking about is this gag order and the alleged violations from the prosecutors here, they say it's about 14. it's pretty clear if you read the gag order and then you look at what trump has been saying and posting about witnesses it says and even commenting on the jury here what does a judge due to deter him didn't do fines work. i mean,