records subpoenaed by the committee on ethics show that congressman santos stole from his campaign by deceiving donors into providing contributions that were actually payments for his personal benefit. santos also reported fictitious loans to his political committees to induce donors and party committees to contribute more to his campaign, keeping the elaborate scheme moving forward. george santos is a liar. in fact, he's admitted to many of them. who has used his position of public trust to personally benefit himself from day one. santos now faces 23, 23 criminal charges in connection with his long list of misdeeds. we have already seen two former santos staffers, including his former treasurer, plead guilty to federal charges in connection with santos' corrupt campaign. despite blaming others, including his former treasurer, for the numerous campaign violations, all signs point towards mr. santos that he knowingly and actively participated in a widespread misconduct of his campaign. in fact, the ethics committee report records demonstrate this to a t. george santos has continuously

case or i go to my ethics committee. no disrespect to the committee, i've incurred over $200,000 of legal fees that have been predominantly paid for. so to suggest that i have not complied with them is yet another lie. they've received every document they've asked and documents we did not have, we have is told them we don't have them, we don't have access to what you're asking for. and they persisted and insisted on inventing documents, communication between myself and people that did not exist, thus communication, and we informed them. this was all on the record. but i rise and i question again to the chairman, will he set the record straight that his expulsion resolution contradicts the findings of his report. which one is it? am i guilty of a sexual harassment claim or am i not? the report says i'm not. his filing on this expulsion resolution says i am. that's a very serious allegation, one i sought to see the end of, where the house -- the office of congressional ethics, pardon me, sent a referral to the investigative

not due process under the ethics committee. that's my concern. >> one of your colleagues pointed out that the standard of innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard. >> he's accused of -- he has been indicted in criminal court. he is indicted in criminal court. >> that's the standard you could determine whether it's fair to take away someone's liberty, but if he's expelled from congress they argue that's not taking away his liberty, that's taking away his place in congress, that criminal legal throerb hold does not apply to whether you can be in congress >> read the articles -- i wonder what elizabeth warren will talk about it on the floor. >> is anyone going to miss santos? seems to be unifying -- >> first of all, let's be very clear. we are all members of congress. that doesn't mean everybody gets along. some members will, some members won't. some members will be indifferent. the body will move on. my concern is when you make these massive just changes from precedent it changes the very nature about how the institution

making sure it went to the house ethics committee. the report came out. i think overall -- it's disappointing how many republicans, especially mike johnson, refused to do the right thing. i think this is a terrific vote that shows his leadership in the future. and little moral center he has on issues like this. the other republicans, obviously we had almost united democratic coalition in caucus. it is a sad day. but george santos needs to focus on the bigger issues he has which is his 32 count indictment he has ahead of him. in the months ahead. >> ultimately this should never have been a partisan issue. whether or not someone has a proper moral clarity, the integrity, follows the rules, and therefore can justly vote on legislation, can see classified information, can serve the american people is not based on whether or not they are republican or democrat. and it is too bad that the republicans on this day where more than half of them voted to protect george santos view this as purely a partisan issue. it is an issue of right and wrong. it is an issue of

nature, unanimous in nature, every single republican and every single democrat on the house ethics committee stands behind the ethics report which has serious findings of wrongful on ethical and likely criminal behavior so i expect there'll be a bipartisan vote tomorrow likely to expel george santos but at the moment that remains to be seen and we'll see what happens on the floor. >> mr. leader are you urging your fellow democrats to vote one way or the other quick. >> we have no official recommendation and we recognize this is an issue of conscience. >> you said yesterday house democrats on the negotiation -- would there be concern that the product that comes out those negotiations might be for house democrats? it's important that any resolution that is reached by basic senate negotiators will ultimately be presented to the senate democratic caucus, the senate republicans and the course house democrats and republicans to try to see if it's consistent with an agreement that has secure bipartisan support in both chambers. we have made clear in leadership or has made clear that any resolution

i mean, what they found and uncovered was so bad that the members of the ethics committee felt like, we can't wait. i mean, this guy is really beyond the pale. so, i think if you're going to have an ethics process, you've got to let them make recommendations. that's what you do with any other committee. any other committee makes recommendations to their chamber and you tend to go with the experts on it. that's what the ethics committee is for. every time i hear john fetterman lately, i find myself agreeing with him. he's right on israel. he's right on menendez. he's right on this santos situation. he's making a lot of sense. i think as -- >> pennsylvania -- >> look what -- >> pennsylvania democrat save the state. >> yeah, but, you know, it's not going to help you in an election in pennsylvania, i can assure you, david. but i just think that what menendez is accused of, he's right. if it's true and if you had an ethics committee look at it and say, looks like he's doing things with a foreign country that jeopardizes national security, how could you wait? how could you wait? >> one thin

well, the ethics committee has given a 20-day order. i think that the head of international relations of esteghlal club will definitely investigate the cases if there is a violation on the part of the federation. within the federation, if this violation has taken place, it means in any case those people who do this as a muslim will be banned from the ethics committee , so the federation itself can ban its own members. the same thing has happened before. yes, thank you, mr. mirghfouri. dear please i think the dominance of the matadors in europe, the leaders of the four leagues. are among the five prestigious spanish leagues. if from 2008 to 2012, everything in football ended with spanish players, and the matadors would be the winners of all international competitions and most club competitions, and their famous tiki taka football would not allow other competitors to breathe. now, however, there are the football coaches of this country who, with their actions , have the first say in the prestigious european leagues, and european football

appeased as well. >> kate brought up an important note and it is about the fact that this is an ethics committeeit is not a court of law. that's its job. it's job is to look at the ethics of its members and to see whether or not they should be representing their district. in his case, and he has admitted to so many of these lies, he lied his way into office and all of these other charges are something else, bigger and grander, but the lying is all part of this. so i will start with you, emily. why don't members know what they're going to do or they're just telling us that because they do know what they're going to do and don't want to tell anybody until they do it because it is embarrassing. >> they're waiting to see what everyone else does. no one is formally whipping these votes, not house speaker mike johnson. santos has said he is not trying to sway votes one way or the other. he has told me and other reporters that he's out today and my colleagues from "politico" on the hill have one whipping of the votes themselves, it seems that that two-thirds vote is there but there's a lot of discussio

where is the ethics committee? because it is introduced by the assembly with the introduction of the ruling team and votes. well , you read the words of the president, the same words of the ruling team . i have many issues. where do you want these documents? what was this documentation about the ability of the first person in our country to lead, he never mentioned the existence of corruption so readily. please don't ever let this discussion go and i hope it will continue. thank you very much. we will be with you for a minute to discuss. we have 35 rotating coaches in football now, because i look at it from the perspective of the champions organization, great national champions. most of us belong to the press, the police, the property of esteghlal elsewhere, ilas prolicense class. sitting at home, how many coaches will be proven? when should i go to this profession or become persian? now why is the issue of dupin not brought up for several years ? it is not clear why this doping case is itself an example of corrupt

ilya kazakov, who talked about the ups and downs of our football with the former head of the ethics committeeian football union, andrei sozin. in our studio andrey sozin is a man. who is one of the most interesting and profound football experts in russia, quite recently he, in fact, served as a mouthpiece for opinions, a mouthpiece for decisions made by the ethics committee of the russian football union, of which you were a member. andrey , for more than a year now, if i’m not mistaken, you have not been in this body, the punitive, supervisory body of the russian football union, there has been a complete change of members of the ethics committee, today those decisions are made, and we... i can’t imagine, so that beskov, when they remove the interview, will swear swearing, i can’t, i can’t imagine, but galaktionova i can now already imagine that this is upbringing, i don’t know, maybe, well, that before coaches were less nervous, before they didn’t give results, they pressured, so i think impunity. this is impunity, he , by and large, got away with it, well, as if they said, well, two matches,

voters they had to rely on the ethics committee. it would have set a standard that says we're going to protect our own even in the face of overwhelming evidence. and remember he actually admitted to some of this when it first came out. the other thing, though, if you think about the ethics committee it was formalized in 1967, and over the years they have actually added rules and regulations as the times have changed. and as one of our colleagues said earlier this week this is political catfishing. this is a person who created new ways, frankly, of scamming his voters that i also hope the ethics committee takes a look at and says are there new rules and regulations we need to add because we now believe this level of conduct is not appropriate if you're to be in public service, that they would adhere to going forward. >> yesterday before santos became an ex-congressman he and republican max miller, republican of ohio, got into a testy exchange on the house floor. i want you to take a listen. >> i myself have been a victim of george sa

i want to tell you that this is due to the fact that, by the way , the ethics committee and the disciplinary committee were of the opinion in the past that if the cost of the player's mistake is the cost of the mistake, the fines should be increased. it decreases , but we see again that it does not decrease, a forgiveness goes back to the same first sentence as we we abandon basic football , we abandon moral education, and today, according to the research conducted, the moral philosophy governing iranian football is situationalism. we have players with high idealism and high relativism . this results in moral situationism. it means that the value and moral principles depend on the situation in which the individual's interests are in. this is very dangerous. by the way , we have repeated this research two or three times . maybe the results will change, but we did not see that all the players go to the same place in terms of moral position. gathering this has a worrying message, a worrying message the problem is that those who do not fit into this moral philosophy are eliminated and after a wh

all this i want to tell you is caused by the fact that we, the ethics committee and the disciplinary committee , had the idea in the past that if the cost of a player's mistake is the cost of the mistake raising them causes a decrease, but we see again that this decrease does not occur. it goes back to my first sentence that we abandon basic football and education. we leave the moral and today, based on a research conducted, moral philosophy prevails iranian football is realistic, we have players with high idealism and high relativism. the result is moral situationism. what does it mean in simple language? it means that moral values ​​and principles depend on the situation in which the individual's interests are in. this is very dangerous . by the way, we have repeated this research two or three times. maybe the results will change, but we have not seen it all. from the point of view of the moral position of the players, going to a place to gather, this has a worrying message. the worrying message is that those who do not fit into this moral philosophy will be destroyed. and after a w

he is the only ranking member of the house ethics committee, susan wild. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> the house ethics committee says it is worried about precedent here, but enough republicans banded together and decided to expel santos. he has not been convicted in a court of law, but he has been kicked out because of the ethics committee report. what was your initial reaction when you saw the vote, and did you think that there was a possibility that he would have stayed. >> well, thank you for the questions. a substantial members of congress and substantial members of the republicans saw the ethics report, and saw the hard work that went into it, and saw fit to vote in favor of expulsion despite the leadership and that sglaurnlgt and so the public needs to see they can trust congress and there is ethics in government. that is what the report and the ethics report that went into it is all about. i am very, very grateful that the expulsion resolution passed. >> you are the ranking member, a democrat, on the ethics committee, but it is a bipar

he hadn't been convicted of a crime yet, but in the house, there's an ethics committee. it's a bipartisan committee. and part of a member of congress due process when you're in the house is the ethics committee. and what i was listening to was the republican cochair, the ethics committee, the minute the report was finished running down to the floor to file a motion to expel. so i think if you're going to have an ethics committee and respect that process and have any kind of institutional integrity, this was the right vote and i'm glad it was cast today. he's going to have his day in court. if he wants to run again, he can put his name back on the ballot. i suspect he's not going to do this. but this was a good one for republican branding and also for the integrity of the house. >> nothing seems out of the realm of the possibility for george santos. you have been arguing that precedent or not, the standard needs to change in the house. i am wondering from your persp perspective, some of the arguments that santos made about the process with this ethics committee report bei

joining us is democratic congressman glenn ivey of maryland, member of the house ethics committee andith this congressional historian, norm ornstein, an american scholar at the american enterprise institute. gentlemen, good to see you tonight. thank you for being with us. norma, for people who have been following this, there's been an interesting evolution. particularly some democrats including cheney raskin who earlier when this vote was first taken, voted against the expulsion of congressman santos because he said we don't really want to have emotions guiding how we do things that are that important congress, especially when you expel someone who is not answerable to you. they're answerable to their constituents. so he wanted to hear the evidence from the ethics committee. you are skeptical that the ethics committee would do its job because sometimes it just doesn't in congress. tell me how all that unfolded. >> the ethics committee, the best word i could use for its performance over the last number of years is feckless. it rarely takes action against other members and often divides

so this is what the ethics committee put up a god bless him and what they think they're doing and what their work is. you know i believe they do good work when it's relevant at this ain't it. so with that i'm going to make this a very brief opportunity for a couple of questions. in an orderly fashion, without screaming at me. we will go by hand. go ahead. [inaudible question] >> i cooperated. i provided them every single document for the most part of if the went off of came from my counsel. go ahead. [inaudible question] why not just -- >> because if i leave they win. if i leave, the bullies take place. this is bullying. the chair of the committee putting out a motion to expelled just introduced, not calling a privilege, was designed to force me to resign but he didn't even have the fortitude to go ahead and called a privilege. he someone else to come someone who has just recently done one on me, which is congressman d esposito. the readily of what is it is all theater ticket is theater for the cameras for its theater for the microphones. it's good for the american people. at the expen

if the disciplinary committee or the ethics committee pull the manager's foot in the middle. we had a conflict. we were in the fourth week . we had a conflict and we were saying, "hey , sir, nothing has happened at the beginning of the season. the scores are not clear yet . who will be relegated and who will be the champion? all these tensions and tensions seem unnatural now that we have not yet reached the halfway point of my season. unfortunately, all of this is still happening inside the audience, the fans are pulling the fans to the platforms, go to the platform tomorrow. they do something, then it causes the order of that form of that system to be messed up at all . in my opinion, they should pay attention to this , especially since we have a derby ahead of us. let me just say that it's going to be scary . yes, it's really bad. now there's also a derby, and now we're saying, sir, they've lost their nerve . now they have to concentrate on the field, even a head coach, a trainer, a club manager, or anyone. . and the reaction that the english football association showed is

you might ask yourself what then is even the purpose of having an ethics committee if they can issue a report as scathing about a member's conduct as the one that this ethics committee put out a few weeks ago if a member can only be thrown out for a criminal conviction. that viewpoint may be enough. it is very high bar. it takes two-thirds of the body to vote to kick somebody out of this congress. so what you're looking at is potentially a situation where you would have every democrat vote to expel and still need another 90 or so republicans. those republican votes are looking a little soft as i stand here right now. >> i spoke to a couple of the democrats who introduced their own expulsion resolution earlier this week. they spoke on the hill this morning. what did we hear from them? what to we know then about how this is going to go down? >> reporter: yeah, look, they're trying to prebut this argument that santos and some of his defenders have made that the only standard can be a standard of a criminal conviction. listen to dan goldman who was on this program yesterday talking about

the first one happened last may, was referred to the house ethics committee. the second one happened just about a month ago, initiated by some republicans in new york. that failed as you can see. and now after that ethics report came out, mid-november, added momentum for an expulsion vote, which we just had and lands at 311-114. so easily clearing that two-thirds threshold. with that, santos is now a former member of congress. he's the sixth member of the house to be expelled in all of american history. here are the other five. you can add santos to this list. and just think about the gravity of what it took to expel these members in the past. these three in the top row here, all 1861, the start of the civil war, each one of them took up arms for the confederacy, they were expelled from the house. michael myers in 1980, he was ensnared in the fbi sting operation known as abscam, refused to resign, he was expelled. in 2002, james traficant from ohio, he was convicted of multiple federal corruption charges in the spring of '02, the summer of '02, the house voted

many members wanted to wait for the ethics committee report.was just purely political from the new york republicans, who wanted to distance themselves from george santos when they realized that he, rightly so, is such a political liability for them. but in reality, more than half of the republican party voted to protect george santos, notwithstanding, the egregious misconduct that was laid out in that report. >> here's my question for you, mark, who was there from the beginning. when you take a step back, the big question that i had in the beginning is still there. which is like -- how did so many systems fail for this guy? i think we now can all say this guy never should've been a member of congress. that has been the judgment of three quarters of the house. i think it's the judgment of the people in this district. how did it happen? why did it happen? >> one of the things that i looked into in the book is that the scientific literature behind a lying. it actually is very difficult to figure out if someone is lying. when will you do that is to

where is the ethics committee?ause the ethics committee is introduced by the assembly with the introduction of the ruling team and votes . well, you are reading the same words of the president , you are reading the same words of the ruling team . i have many issues. where did you get these documents? it was possible that the first person of our country has never mentioned the existence of corruption so openly . now it has been brought up. let's skip the stage of seeing whether there is corruption or not. let 's go to the root of corruption. there are many cases. i am begging you. never let go of this discussion and i hope you will continue. we are with you for a minute. to sum up the discussion , see that we now have 35 rotating coaches in football, because i look at it from the perspective of the champions' organization . they have a pro-licensing class, sit at home, how many coaches are proven, when should i go to this profession or i will become persian? now, why has the issue of dupin not been brought up for ho

the differences, one could say i have been indicted by the findings of the ethics committee. a process that by the admission of the chair himself was not declared conclusive because they did not want to put more time into it. as if this committee runs on a schedule that is in a rush. some members have been under investigation for five years. suddenly while still under investigation. i am not trying to be arrogant or spiteful or disrespectful of the committee. i am curious to know what is the schedule of the ethics committee? why rest to determine a pre-delivered outcome sought out by members of our conference for this body? this looks like a predetermined necessity for some members to engage in this smear campaign to destroy me. i will not stand by quietly. if they want me out of this body, the people of the third district of new york sent me here and if they want to silence me they have to take the hard vote. host: that was store santos yesterday and in speaking of supportive expelling him is new york republican make melania. -- nick liloda. [video clip] >> here and the 2022

and according to the ethics committee report, he used campaign donations for shopping sprees, fundedrs who took him at his word. his allies may know that in our justice system, every defendant is in fact innocent until proven guilty. but that system entitles defendants to due process. not to a seat in the united states congress. after a thorough investigation more than two thirds of santos's colleagues decided that he was unfit for office, and voted to expel him with a procedure explicitly laid out in the united states constitution. good riddance, okay? but there is another matter at hand that we must discuss because the vote kicked into motion a special election for new york's third congressional district, which george santos formally represented. that election could give democrats more leverage in the house not for a sneak peek into 2024. and under new york law, governor kathy hochul is required to declare a special election within ten days of the vacancy. an election that must happen within 70 to 80 days after that proclamation. and the special election? the special election will

in this case, because of the extraordinary nature of george santos' fraud and deceit, the ethics committee moved ahead in coordination with the department of justice. so we now in a very unusual way have an ethics report before we have a resolution to the criminal case. and if you look at this ethics report, there can be no question, any reasonable american would vote to expel george santos from congress. it is egregious. >> how do you think the vote is going to go tomorrow? because as you know, majority whip steve scalise says he is going to vote against expulsion. jim jordan said the same thing. >> i don't understand what their rationale is there. they're basically, as they done for the past 11 months, putting the political power of the republican majority, that slim majority over the interests of the voters in the third district of new york and the integrity of congress. it is laughable to hear george santos say that the reason people lack trust in congress is because they speak out of both sides of their mouth. george santos is the reason why people might lack trust in the congress, an

the republican majority held our own former member accountable after the house ethics committee found he engaged in criminal behavior. it would be hypocritical for the house democrats to not join us in holding one of their own members accountable who actually pled guilty to breaking the law. i do not submit this resolution lightly. mr. speaker, article 1, section 5 of our constitution gives the house the solemn responsibility to discipline members for disorderly behavior and as conviction demonstrates, representative bowman sought to cause panic to delay official proceedings of this house. i urge my fellow members to vote yes on my resolution and to hold our colleagues accountable for when they break the law. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, this is a profoundly stupid resolution. under republican control, this chamber has become a pl

things happen, as the famous saying always says, prevention is better than cure, before the ethics committee and the committee disciplinary, court, and complaints will kill this . i think that the institutions that are now at the head of these clubs, esteghlal press police, like the ministry of youth sports , or now, if the self-improvement organization is involved , it should have been solved from there. after all , it is not very nice that two members of the manager's heat let the manager complain to each other and take the matter to the media and the court and so on well, this is mostly due to the fact that there is no empathy and companionship between the members of the board of directors. now , apart from mr. fereydoni , there is no reason for these letters not to be published. i think there is no reason why a book of these letters would be published. i said wrongly, mr. feridouni, yes, please, i don't know what letter he wrote, but now esteghlal is a stock exchange company , they should discuss internal controls. and if these internal controls were implemented, now those supervisions i

happen, as the famous saying always says, prevention is better than cure , before going to the ethics committee, disciplinary committee, court and complaints i think that the institutions that are now at the top of these clubs are esteghlal persepolis, like the ministry of youth sports now, if the khasazazi organization is involved here , it should have been resolved from there. after all , it's not very nice that two members of the hit manager's hit manager sue each other and end up in the media and the court . i promise , there is no sympathy and companionship between the members of the board of directors. now, aside from mr. fereydoni , there is no morals to prevent these letters from being published. on what account can this letter be published ? i think i said your name wrongly, mr. fereydoni. yes, please. i don't know what kind of letter was leaked, but now esteghlal is a company the stock exchange should discuss internal controls. internal controls determine at what level everyone has access to which documents . it would have been implemented, well, finally , we saw less of these events

ethics committee report. there hadn't been a modicum of process. for a lot of republicans who secretly wanted to give him the boot and wanted to see what the ethics committee was able to come up with. it was a scathing report. it gave them cover to vote yes even though speaker johnson and majority leader steve scalise were against doing it because of the precedent. you talk about the precedent. the bar for expulsion before was you had to be a confederate sympathizers or convicted felon. it was the case the jim traficant in 2002 and so some republicans and some democrats frankly but even mark -- a representative from new york it doesn't say what needs to be done. we think we know enough and that is enough to establish a new precedent in this. again, that becomes potentially a rabbit hole here. here is the other important thing. the constitution is clear. look at article one, section five. it is not conditional. the house determines who the members are regardless of what the states send in. they are the ultimate arbiter as to who sits in the house of

we believe that we can file a complaint against them to the ethics committee of the federation because it is possible that your contract was supported by other places , and you mention esteghlal. which common sense would believe that their contract is 160 million tomans and these friends who set these rules were already in the working group and we are sure that now that they have taken responsibility for a club, now they are also objecting to this law . now i have a question. paying attention to the fact that the judicial bodies of the federation are now independent where do you want to take the complaint so that we can complain? anyway, the football federation has a committee called the ethics committee, yes, and they have to prove that their contract is like this . we are also able to give an answer if they want to, they must have this right for themselves to give an answer to the body that told such a lie, and now it is a debate that of course i personally think that this is also due to the void of the law. if it was, it means the club. sepahan does the work, they always tell us tha

and i think about a we can later, the ethic committee that we're announcing this. so this was a good time to lay low and just focus on actual constituent work. let's go to the district and start doing real things. like having town halls. meeting with small businesses and really identifying real problems. that new york is actually facing. state and local taxes. water contamination. >> did he take that job seriously? >> yes, he did. but some days not so much. and that's where just having the media in front of the office, no offense. i was watching a congressman go from congressman to celebrity is what i was witnessing quite a bit. >> what about all of these suspicious purchases? were you with him when any of this was going on? >> no. >> we were talking about some of this before the commercial break. you said, you asked at one point, he needed receipts. >> yes. the one thing, it was around the time when i think it was an exroommate who said that he had a burberry scarf stolen and this is all just some of the oddest things coming out. i thought, okay. we have 15 minute

. >> the ethics committee says his actions were unbecoming. >> the ethics committee is not junl, jury and executioner. >> the voters understand that in this instance, george santos was unfit to serve and it was republicans who brought the expulsion resolution to the floor. it was republicans that removed him from congress. the chairman of the ethics committee produced a damning report, and we did what was right. >> so now the question is whether or not republicans are going to hold on to that seat. there will be a special election to fill this vacant seat that will occur sometime in the new year. the question will be can they hold it also in the general election. this is a district that joe biden carried in 2020. there's a tight margin that can go even tighter which is weighing on a lot of members' minds even as they cast a vote to kick him out of the house. >> a couple of hours until the big show. what do you have today? >> more about the tension inside the republican conference. we have new reporting about how mike johnson is grappling with this. i actually heard from george santos

refused to answer any questions about the allegations, the specifics within that bipartisan ethics committeeort that found that he used campaign donor money on his own personal items. i asked him about, that he pushed, back he said you are a lot smarter than to ask their question as he walked away from reporters. now this comes as republican leaders seem to be siding with santos on this, including speaker of the house mike johnston who said his real reservations about, it as well as the stockpile is indicating that this vote on friday could be close. manu raju, cnn capitol hill. >> a new york court has reinstated a gag order prohibiting former u.s. president donald trump and his attorneys from publicly criticizing courtroom staff in the ongoing 250 million dollar civil fraud trial. the judge presiding over the civil fraud trial, says he intends to enforce that a gag order, quote, vigorously, and rigorously. cnn's evan perez has more. >> a new york state appeals court reinstated an order prohibiting donald trump from making certain public statements about court staff in his ongoing fraud tria

now , what is happening in the ethics committee? he should examine the duty of the ethics committee himself and see what duties he has to give. i will give you an example. i want to talk about this issue very concretely, because i myself work in grassroots football and i am working now and before. i worked, now you go and check the prices of football teams, now they tell you tui if you want a team, you can get 40 tomans, 50 million tomans, if you want two teams , you can get 250 million tomans. this year, in 1403, tehran league one teams will be four tiers. 3 billion tomans in the premier league. toman money is a house, it means for a young couple or there are many people in this country, they don't have a home at all, they don't have a shelter for themselves, how should we find a solution? everyone has come, entered, gone, bought a team , recruited a number of players, it's slavery , it's slavery. why among the economic factors that authority the supreme leader points to him and says that the mafia wants the economic agents of the

general, our football is somehow lost from the hands of the officials, it can be said by the ethics committee and the committee. disciplinary at all, as a material, for example, overseeing our football , it is absolutely clear, sir, that the procrastination of the disciplinary committee, the ethics committee itself causes the escalation of these incidents, that is, now we still have not completed the outskirts of shahrvard, the vote has not been issued, four or five new cards in this same esteghlal prefix, a lot of these must be collected. let's say that our football should become more professional than this and we can , of course, i must say that there is a desire, there is a determination, there is a collective wisdom to bring this matter to its destination and bring it all together until today's very important game. you also said that it is going to be held by sailors and tractor sanat naft abadan and zobahan esfahan zubahan, the team has changed with mohammad rabiei and it got very good results. when mohammad rabiei left like rafsanjan, we saw what problems he faced like rafsanjan and the

report came out, and this move is out on the ethics committee.nd the house floor from c-span, and we will throw pit up, and there are the republicans in the house chamber, and melanie -- and yes, this is obviously not a vote count. this is on to a matter that is happening before this vote. disregard the numbers, but you can see the house members milling about. melanie zanona, you are getting some word and color on the chamber. >> yes, we are hearing that george santos has entered the chamber before this vote on his future, and there is a member who came up to him, and gave him a little fist pump, and alina peluma came up to talk to him. and so this is different from the posture yesterday when he was defiant and had plenty to say. and so this is a big deal for him, and it is appearing that the momentum is shifting back in his favor, and it is is important to point out that a lot to members who are voting to vote against him, it is not because they have love for him, because they say what is in the ethics report is damning, but they are concerned t