prayers, the ayatollah gave speeches about the elections that have set off protests. tehse rem-- these remarks are about one hour. . if people do not feel free, they

will never go to the polling stations. trusting the islamic establishment was evident in this election. i will tell you later that the they want to create doubt. they want to cast doubt on the election. the confidence that people have in the establishment, they want

to create panic among the people. the iranian people know, without confidence, there would be low turnout. when there is a low turnout, then the legitimacy of the establishment would shake. that is what the enemies are after. that is what the enemy pursues. they want to take away your trust so that your turnout is no more there, so that legitimacy is no longer there for the islamic establishment. this harms much more than setting fire to banks and putting buses ablaze. this is what cannot be compared

to any other loss. in such a great move, the people actively turnout and the people are told that you made a mistake, you should not have confided in the islamic establishment, they are not trustworthy. that is what the establishment wants -- that is what the enemy wants. this is what they hinted at before the election. a couple of months before the election was held, in late march i thoth people that the enemy is repeatedly whispering into teaears that the voter fraud isn the way. they were paving the way for that.

then i told our great friends inside the country, i gave them the warning not to echo what the people want to inculcate in people's minds. the islamic establishment is tested by the people. this is not gained easily. for 30 years the establishment, with all its officials and statesman, with all the paint it has taken, it has managed to -- with all of the pains it has taken, it has managed to keep its confidence. the third point is the issue of a rivalry. competition or a rival re, its

turbulent-free, at the same time transparent. this was very apparent. everybody was witness to that. the campaign's in the states that you saw, they were to the point, so much so that some people opposed to them. i will tell you that they were somehow right at times. some problems were also created. you can see the consequences. i should tell you that we had this assumption and we still assume that the competition between the four presidential candidates was actually competition between people and

waves between various groups in the islamic establishment. enemies tried, through various media, and some of those media belong to zionists, ill- wishers, they tried to make believe in the media that there is a fight between supporters of islamic establishment and the opposition. that is not true. they have no right to say that. the four presidential contenders who entered the election race all belonging to the islamic establishment. they have been and they still are. one of these people is the president of our country.

the president is a hard-working president who is serving everyone and is confided by everyone. one of those candidates use the the prime minister eight years ago when i was president myself. he was prime minister at the time i was president for eight years. one of the candidates was the commander of its islamic revolution guard corps for years and one of the major commanders during the course of iraq-iran war. one of those people for two terms has been in charge of the legislature, the speaker of our parliament. these are parts of the islamic establishment. they all belong to be islamic establishment. of course that have different opinions.

there are lines in it projects that differ from one another, but they all belong to the islamic establishment. this competition was made within the establishment. it was not a competition between inside and outside this establishment. zionist radio and some media in the u.k. and in the u.s. have been trying to say otherwise, that this has been a competition from inside and outside the establishment. that's not true. it's been a competition within the establishment. i know them very closely. i know them all. i note they are stating their case very well. i am familiar with their

personal traits. i've worked with all of them closely. i know them well. of course. i do not approve of all of their viewpoints, not all of their viewpoints do i approve of. some of their attitudes and approaches could be criticized, without a doubt. some of them i consider more appropriate to serve than others. but it has been upon the people to decide. that is what happened. the people picked to they wanted. -- who they wanted. my choice was not revealed to the public. people have their own criteria. they acted based on that.

millions year, millions outside the country, they decided for themselves. this is a an internal issue of the islamic establishment. changing the reality is purely a treacherous -- purely treacherous. it is not a fight between the islamic establishment and the outside. that's not true. it's only differences of opinion between elements within the framework of the establishment. and the people who voted for these four candidates, the people did trust in the establishment. they thought it was better for the establishment, and they voted for that person.

they tried to choose the ones they found most appropriate to serve this establishment. so the people have also acted according to the principles of the establishment. the debate in the campaign, while it was an important initiative, an interesting initiative that was to the point, it was serious, it was transparent, the televised debates nullified all of the campaign of those people outside. they found there were serious. the candidates were sitting there discussing issues and exchanging their viewpoints seriously. it was not a show. these debates have been positive. they had some positive points and there have been the -

complications, also, which i will mention later. the positive aspects were in these debates and televised discussion sessions, everyone said what they wanted to say it, they honored what was in their minds and in their hearts. clearly a wave of criticism paved the way. everyone had to respond. there were criticized and they have to make a response. they defended themselves. the it spences of individuals and groups, without ambiguity, they were put forth for the public eye naked and honestly.

they talked about their commitments, their projects. all this was publicized for everyone. people could judge for themselves this way. people felt that in the islamic establishment they are not looked upon as strangers, as outsiders. there is no inside and outside in the islamic establishment. that means everything is clear for the whole nation. everything was expressed clearlake for everyone to understand -- everything was expressed clearly. things stemmed from the stamp contemplation. people voted in not a ceremonial way. the right of the boat belongs to the people. people want to have their own choice.

this is what the debate indicated. foreshore, one reason for an increase, 10 million increase in the turnout compared to the last turn out in the previous election rounds has been the same factor, the fact that people thought a mentality, altered others were involved, they came to the scene, and they identified the person they wanted, and they voted. the televised debates were conducted. they found their way into homes, to streets. this strengthened people's right to choose. this helps them nurture their mind and their thoughts. it gives them a better decision making power. this is favored by the islamic

establishment. i should add, such stocks and debates should not lead to the point that results in carrying a grudge against one another. if it was the same way as it was that day, well that was good, but if it is going to be it turned into arguments, then gradually it will bring a grudge with itself and hard feelings. that debate should be conducted at different levels. they should continue. of course by omitting and putting aside the negative parts. they should continue.

officials and individuals should know that they are being criticized and they should feel responsible to come up with their own answers and still responsible for to the criticisms. if one individual is criticized at a time, this is considered an opportunity for him to enlightened people's mines and to reveal the facts and the truth. this is quite positive. it avoids the shortcomings i will mention shortly. if state continue during four years, then at the time of the election when such debates are seen, you will not see an explosive excitement or commotion. everything will be -- all the ideas will be exchanged. all the arguments will be made in the course of time.

these are the positive aspects of these televised debates. but there have been deficiencies that need to be removed. in some cases it would be in these debates that the logical points in these debates were kind of undermined. the emotional and the nervous aspect would prevail. this destructive aspects would prevail at times. it is depicting dayjet status quo -- it is depicting the status quo or looking at the dark side of things to be seen during these debates and also casting doubt on the performance of the previous government's. they were both negative.

such allegations were raised. there were never proved. sometimes they relied on rumors. sometimes unjust remarks were mate, both regarding this government with all the service it has rendered and comments regarding the performance of the previous government for the past 30 years or unjust. -- were unjust. the candidates kind of lost their temper during their discussions amid some positive points. they also raised some unpleasant issues and - po negative points. like other people, i sat and watched these tv debates. i enjoyed the freedom of expression in those debates and

the fact that the islamic establishment has managed to go to the help of the people and help them to decide better. this is what i enjoyed. but the deficiency made me sad. for supporters of the candidates, again, those parts in which negative aspects i mentioned, the supporters did not like those parts either. it was done on both sides. here at this platform and the sermon which is a part of the prayer is, i should reveal the fact.

both candidates in these debates had their own problems and deficiencies, unfortunately. on one hand, they were most explicit insults against the president of the country. even months before the debate they had speeches given to me and i could see for myself and sometimes heard there had been allegations and insults'. who were the insults' addressed to post to the president of a country where the votes came from the people. they made wrong statements to him. the president is tested by the people. they accused him of lying. this is no good. -- the president was chosen by

the people. the fabricated documents of the government performance -- they fabricated documents of the government performance and handed them out. we can see. we know what's happening in this country. we know that these are the facts. they are not true. they swore and they called the president superstitious. they called him names, which is embarrassing. they forgot about morality and law. on the other hand, it's the same story, almost the same thing happened by the other candidates. the performance of the past 30 years was undermined. some people's names were mentioned.

the people were among the great personalities of this establishment. they are the same people who spent most of their blithe for the cause of this revolution -- most of revolutionlife for the cause of this revolution. i have to mention some names now for the first time. mr. rafsanjani. i have to tell people this gentleman has been accused of corruption along with another gentleman. regarding the relatives and family members, if anyone has any claims, any complaints, they should referred to judicial

sources. you cannot raise such issues before they are proved. if something is proved, then every society member is equal, you can raise the issues. but you cannot raise such claims when they are not approved. when such things are mentioned, then misunderstanding happens. then the youth think the wrong way. everybody knows the gentlemean. i know him before this. not only after the islamic revolution. i know him. i have known him for 52 years closely. . rashami is one of the main

elements of the revolution in the course of the islamic revolution. he has been one of the most serious and active supporters of the revolution before the islamic revolution and after the revolution he was one of the most effective political figures alongside the late imam and after the late imam departure as well. even to date. several times on several occasions he nearly got assassinated. before the revolution he gave away his belongings for the cause of the revolution. our youth should know these facts. after the revolution he had a

different responsibilities. eight years he was president. before he was parliament speaker. he had some other major positions. all through this time i do not know of one incident in which he assimilated wealth. i don't know anything like that. these are the facts. everyone should know. the most sensitive period, he was at the service of the revolution and the establishment. in numerous cases we have differences of opinion with mr brahms andrafanjani, but we shod not create a misunderstanding

for people. between him and the president, they have had their different opinions since the president came to office. they have different opinions. in foreign policy, in the manner of spreading social justice, as well as in some cultural issues. our president thinks the president's ideas are closer to those of mine. [crowd chanting in a foreign- language]

>> the same story regarding the other gentleman. he has also served as revolution. he has rendered great service is. he cares allot regarding the revolution and the establishment. no doubt about it. live television debates are good, but these shortcomings should be removed. after the debates i talked to the president and warned him that -- because i knew he would listen to me. regarding fighting corruption, the stance of the establishment is a clear one. in issues related to social justice, we have a clear-cut stance.

corruption should be fought any where it is. [crowd cheers and chants] >> i want to mention, we do not claim that in our establishment there is no corruption, no financial or economic corruption. yet there is corruption. or else i would not write the eight-point letter addressing the heads of the legislative body. yes, we have corruption. but the islamic establishment is one of the soundest and

healthiest establishments in the world over today. attributing to some zionist reports and its resources, sources, actually, attributing based on those reports accusing the government of the country of corruption is not the right thing to do. questioning the credibility is not the right thing to do either. financial corruption is an important issue. it must be fought against seriously, both in the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches of the government. everyone is obliged to fight corruption. if corruption is not brought under control, it will spread further, as you can see in