basically, this trust is revoked because sometimes he sees this lawyer 's relationship with that lawyer or with that client. second, third , there is no standard for the index of payment of fees and attorney's fees . i say there is no standard, i know there is a tariff and etc. but we are talking about a market where the real price of the service is discovered based on what is known to be the price. alimony, family matters, property matters , business matters of the company, etc., how will it proceed, because here people actually look at who they are with and what they are doing, the ceiling and floor, etc., and this is also meaningless. i don't believe that a ceiling and in fact a red line should be put up, but i don't use the word cheap, nor the word expensive. in other words, it means cost-effectiveness, which means the same logic that makes people feel in any field. that they may even be able to perform this service themselves sometimes, but still they go and entrust it to another person because it is economical in terms of economy, for the time being, such an index does not exist,

farhanakian is a lawyer or not ? if you call him, fersht faranakian will tell you his license number, office phone number, mobile number, address , everything . that we are very busy with our own service the public accepts a part of it, but a part of it is that we are not allowed, that is, we are not allowed to classify the information that is in the hands of the judiciary or the tax department . in the 7th plan , make a move, god willing, it will be matured. this is another discussion that makes this weakness more serious, and i myself accept the fact that we have more than 20 lawyers' associations. this is more serious than the discussion you are raising. for example, if you take my name and search for lawyers in shiraz, my name will not appear. now , the point is, yes, it means that there is no single data bank, basically. that is, you have to search for the center of my name or on the google website of the lawyers' association, which starts from the beginning, just like the other centers.

part of these unhealthy relations is between the lawyers who have become lawyers and the judges who are now working, that is, those of us who become lawyers from the beginning can do less. in the revolving door of corruption, we have retired judges here. or, for whatever reason , we take them out of the judiciary, let them become lawyers, and then because they have their own previous relationships in the system, this corruption may be formed . there is no corruption, i want to say that this is exactly the weak point here, this is where more work should be done regarding the payment of fees and hard work. in fact, the open system is a demand-driven system, which means we cannot say that the market is free and facilitate their entry. and after onur, regarding their rights and burdens, the amount of their rights and burdens, in fact, if we believe that we should increase the supply, the rights and burdens themselves must be adjusted, which means that we can still talk about the mandatory nature of rights and burdens, but at the moment, the rights and burdens of lawyers regarding the co

that is, there is no limit in terms of the presence of lawyers , nor in terms of the number of lawyers, nor is the law binding them . even in some cases, the legislator has required that there must be a lawyer, which means that there is no need to remind them, so part of the term "catastrophe" used by mr. gurbanzadeh is removed. turning to the cultural discussion, it must be a cultural work, and the issue is that the radio and television are very effective in this matter. as you can see, i am not against the fact that , for example, in the roles, they must play a positive role , not a negative role. after all, every movie is a scenario. it's another story, but in this case , it is possible to show how someone can use this right by making a movie. and the story means that i want to say that in this story , both our judicial system and the discussion of our legal system are in trouble. we do not have a problem because of this , but what i actually agree with in mr. ghorbanzadeh's words is that we could not provide a system and let's relate the demand to each other , that is, if i want to

, we train lawyers at all.ide, everyone says that this is another ball, they hit it with their hands, yes, but where and where in basketball , can that person go to handball and actually play the best game , or can a handball player go to the basketball field and actually hit the ball? put that figure in the basket, they have the same cover, the ball and the hand. in fact, nobles to the details of the rules and in fact the regulations today, all of this is a process that we need to train people first, gradually , not in a 120-minute test with 120 questions, which is only the way to save them and the way to actually fall . please just tell me about being forced and your solution, i believe. mandatory should happen when this step is honest , come to us, if it doesn't work for you, then complain , this is a step that the law firm should first put the list of lawyers, then gradually tell them what they specialize in, then gradually, in fact, the history. this field is the basis is, in fact, their own discretion sho

a good lawyer with a weak lawyer a lawyer who has little knowledge, just like any other profession , we have a good lawyer. lawyers do their duty in any case. even a lawyer who does not do the client's work properly . we paid the lawyer after a while. our lawyer has not yet followed up . the lack of clear performance records of lawyers has made it difficult for people to choose a lawyer, despite the fact that he is a lawyer who is very disciplined and works very well. this exists, but due to ignorance, people refer to another person who, for example, may have less power on this earth. okay, now the lawyers' associations have taken the first step in the direction of transparency with the launch of the generosity system . while the independence of the lawyers' association is important to us , we also consider transparency and the people's right to monitor the lawyer's performance. and zinfian's complaint of the design and operation case has been received. all clients and plaintiffs of the case can refer to this system, evaluate lawyers and register their own complaints. if it is clear

trump's lawyer failed that test. here is part of the damming exchange. >> could a president who ordered seal team 6 to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached, could he be subject to criminal prosecution. >> if he were impeached and convicted first. >> so your answer is no? >> no. it's clear the judge viewed that as the wrong answer today. no president can order assassinations of their rivals, but instead of saying no, the lawyer claims the power for a president to do that and never be prosecuted with one tiny little exception, that basically if a president were impeached and convicted in the senate, only then, trump's lawyer says, could they be prosecuted for this idea, for having navy seals assassinate their rivals. that's not current law, but it is a very dangerous claim. the legal theory is bananas. and beyond all of that, i want you to keep in mind the history because we're going to play more from the damming claim. the saying the only road to prosecution is a senate impeachment trial that convicts a

i am not talking to a lawyer. it should be a cultural thing, and the issue is that radio and television are very effective in this matter, how can you see, i am not against that, for example, in the roles , they must play a positive role, not a negative role. every serial or movie has a scenario , it's another story, but in this case, you can make a movie , make a program. he showed how someone can use this right, and the story means that i want to say that in this story, both our judicial system and our lawyer system have been oppressed . mr. gurbanzadeh , i agree with them that we could not reconcile the supply and demand system.

lawyers. flan the case and the lawyers should deal with the defence lawyers.— with the defence lawyerst — with the defence lawyers. can we please look at paul _ with the defence lawyers. can we please look at paul 0005962. i with the defence lawyers. can we| please look at paul 0005962. we with the defence lawyers. can we i please look at paul 0005962. we are in the 6th of february now. we have an e—mailfrom martin smith from cartwright king to yourself. i am going to just read from this e—mail. it says the defence were unable to persuade the judge to order any further disclosure. the defence solicitor told me that the defendant still operate the store in which the post office is situated. the defendant hadn't instructed them that both sets of subpostmaster is had told him that they had experienced problems with the horizon system. although you had said in yourfinal horizon system. although you had said in your final statement that during the subsequent transfer of cash and stock after mr ishaq's suspension, the defence suggested this does not necessarily mean that no problems were enc

they are making the choices as the lawyers-— the lawyers.id you not see as disclosure officer the duty - the lawyers. did you not see as disclosure officer the duty for l the lawyers. did you not see as i disclosure officer the duty for you to... i disclose everything that i have from the post office side of the post office, everything else is done by cartwright king to the defence. could be please look at the next document. here we have you chasing up some of the references. the we can look at page three. these are chasing up some of those references that are in the defence statement of mr ishaq. the bottom e—mail is from you. it says... is at the final page? i think there is one more page. please see below from steve bradshaw, forwarding your e—mail, which is to advise that a request for the call logs for the branch need to go via the security team into theirs. to the needs to be a conversation between yourselves and pete thomas and andy dunks. would it be possible for you to progress this and have the logs sent to steve bradshaw? we have

at the same time, 250 spanish lawyers signed the letter. o from their own government they wanted to join the case of south africa's complaint in the international court of justice . south africa's complaint against the zionist regime's genocide was raised in this body last thursday and friday , and now, as i announced at the beginning of the program, it will be hosted by mr. behnam habibzadeh. lawyers, regarding the fact that you expressed your desire and readiness to join the complaint filed by south africa against the zionist regime, if you agree, before we discuss the matter further, my colleagues will prepare a report about the complaint of south africa , and i will see the report. lawyers or jurists are the last to decide this case to enter our defense in the court is not as important as the struggle of the people present in the scene. no one knows what the court's decision will be. it is an international court with judges from different nationalities. we expect the result to be announced soon. thank you all for welcoming us. this is a

my lawyers and — lawyer, it is for me to consult my lawyers and say will you reach a judgment — lawyersance... that takes me back to my initial question, _ compliance... that takes me back to my initial question, have _ compliance... that takes me back to my initial question, have your - my initial question, have your lawyers — my initial question, have your lawyers in _ my initial question, have your lawyers in government - my initial question, have your lawyers in government giving| my initial question, have your- lawyers in government giving you any advice _ lawyers in government giving you any advice as— lawyers in government giving you any advice as to _ lawyers in government giving you any advice as to whether— lawyers in government giving you any advice as to whether israel— lawyers in government giving you any advice as to whether israel has - advice as to whether israel has breached — advice as to whether israel has breached international- advice as to whether israel has - breached international humanitarian law? you _ breached international humanitarian law? you seem _ breache

even as a lawyer was forced to concede, having his political opponents murdered. >> could a president seal team six to assassinate a political rival? that's an official act, in order to seal team six. >> he would have to and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution. >> but if he weren't, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that? >> and the chief justice's opinion in robbery versus madison, and in our constitution, in plain language of the impeachment judgment clause clearly presuppose that what the founders were concerned about was -- >> i asked you a yes or no question. could a president order seal team six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution? >> if he were impeached and convicted first. >> so your answer is no? >> my answer is a qualified yes. there is a political process that would have to occur under our constitution which requires impeachment and conviction by the senate. >> again, all you got to do is hold on to 35 votes. you hold on to 35 votes in the

did you have any conversations with the lawyer . by the lawyers.u are signing? if i did, i cannot remember— statement you are signing? if i did, i cannot remember what _ statement you are signing? if i did, i cannot remember what was - statement you are signing? if i did, i cannot remember what was said, | statement you are signing? if i did, i i cannot remember what was said, as i cannot remember what was said, as isaid, _ i cannot remember what was said, as isaid, it— i cannot remember what was said, as isaid, it was— i cannot remember what was said, as i said, it was 11 years ago, whether i said, it was 11 years ago, whether i brought— i said, it was 11 years ago, whether i brought up— i said, it was 11 years ago, whether i brought up why are you putting this on— i brought up why are you putting this on or— i brought up why are you putting this on or whatever but we were given— this on or whatever but we were given assurances everything had been approved _ given assurances everything had been approved and was ok. you given assurances everything

weren't the lawyers doing what lawyers do?— weren't the lawyers doing what la ersdo? ., lawyers do?t lawyers do but whey were doing it a bit too much, they were concealing the truth sometimes, they were misleading... how do you know?— how do you know? there is lots of evidence they _ how do you know? there is lots of evidence they didn't _ how do you know? there is lots of evidence they didn't disclose - how do you know? there is lots of. evidence they didn't disclose things to the courts they should have done, civil cases and sometimes criminal cases and they helped the boards of the company, it looks for these are alinvestigations now but it look like they help the board mislead parliament and the courts, so there is a really serious set of allegation.— is a really serious set of alletation. , . , . �* allegation. they really are. am i naive to be _ allegation. they really are. am i naive to be shocked _ allegation. they really are. am i naive to be shocked by - allegation. they really are. am i naive to be shocked by that? - allegation. they really are. am i | naive to be shocked

here's trump's lawyer.achment, assuring the senators, look, if if you go get a phone to convict, he can of course go get arrested and convicted. take a listen. >> if my colleagues on this side of the chamber actually think the president trump committed a criminal offense, a high crime is a felony and misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. the words haven't changed that much overtime. after he's out of office, you don't want to arrest. i'm there's no such thing as a january exemption to impeachment. there is only the text of the constitution, which makes very clear that a former president is subject to criminal sanction after his presidency, for any illegal acts he commits. >> that's donald trump's lawyer at the impeachment hearing making literally the opposite argument that his lawyer made today before these judges. >> yes. and one of the reasons it's also specious is because this impeachment judgment clause doesn't just apply to presidents. it applies to anyone who could be impeached by the house and senate. former

their lawyers have lot of time again with their i lawyers. their lawyers have got their— lawyers.ve been submitted to the department. i instances, their cases have been. submitted to the department. but they are _ submitted to the department. but they are sat— submitted to the department. but they are sat there, _ submitted to the department. but they are sat there, they— submitted to the department. but they are sat there, they are - submitted to the department. but they are sat there, they are not i they are sat there, they are not moving — they are sat there, they are not moving through _ they are sat there, they are not moving through. recently, i they are sat there, they are not moving through. recently, we. they are sat there, they are not i moving through. recently, we were given— moving through. recently, we were given assurances _ moving through. recently, we were given assurances that _ moving through. recently, we were given assurances that after - moving through. recently, we were given assurances that after 40 i given assurances that after 40 working — given assurance

some of that is he may not want lawyers who are independent and there are also those kinds of lawyers at the top of their game who are only going to take on clients who are willing to listen to their advice. otherwise they should go get somebody else as a lawyer. >> vaughn, i wonder what is going on here. i mean, i think we have a long list of lawyers who have either left or who donald trump has fired. is it that he's hiring based on a loyalty test, is it a legal strategy, is it people who are unhappy about not having gotten paid? what's happening? >> alina habba is somebody who not only inside of the courtroom, but also outside of the courtroom in front of cameras gives a striking confidencend a defense of donald trump that doesn't give a single inch. much like donald trump himself. you look at the fact she also represented him in a n york civil fraud trial, alongside chris kise who was the one time florida solicitor general, somebody who was widely respected frida, and chris kise, i was there outside of the courthouse the dayonald trump testified in november answering questions from

that's up to the lawyers. as of the date of this letter pass on to the lawyers any concerns that you had about the reliability of the horizon system? no because the lawyers would know of any concerns that are involved in the horizon system. quite mind we will see in miss neil's case the solicitors pushed further and made an application for disclosure. can we please see the next example. if we could scroll down, it sets out the application. it says the defendant has sought and been refused disclosure of the following, details of complaints and investigations into horizon, access to the system used by the defendant. if we scroll over the page again onto page three, there are submissions within this application. paragraph 15, 16 and 17, it submitted that material which suggests the horizon system has accounting faults is therefore relevant to and of potential assistance to the defence for the reasons outlined in paragraphs 12 to 14 reasons outlined in paragraphs 12 to 1a above. it is submitted that access to the

if you have a lawyer you don't get to speak when it's a lawyer's turn to speak.ow donald trump to speak on the closing argument in that case? >> it's within the judges discretion. but if the defendant decides to represent himself, you have to choose one of the other from the beginning. also it's not allowed even if you are there and you decide you're going to do it, if you start testifying you either are cut off or your subject to cross-examination. so you just can't talking closing and say this is what happened. if you do that, you hop on the stand in the other side gets to cross examine you. so this is one where donald trump may be saying this right now but as we all have talked about, i think one of the best things for prosecutor in this case will be if he takes the stand. >> i gotta figure out how to trick donald trump in to testify. if i say don't you dare testify, mighty testify? oh boy. let's hope he gives that final argument. andrew weissmann, thank you very much for joining us on this very important night. coming up, with the new hampshire republican pre

jean carroll's lawyers. donald trump thinks he's above the law, thinks that has nothing to do with him and look at this. he's getting up and walking out of the courtroom in the middle of closing arguments, the jurors have to be there. they're there not by choice, they've been summoned to appear doing their solemn duty as lisa refers to and taking their job seriously but, you know, robbie kaplan summed it up appropriately when she said, the first trial donald trump didn't even bother to show up but this one is about damages and this one is about his money and that's the reason why he's here. but the irreverence that donald trump, his lawyers have shown consistently throughout the judicial proceedings just underscores the fact that he thinks, he being donald trump, that he is above the law, but you know the jurors have the last laugh, don't they? and if they deliver a verdict to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, then donald trump will certainly be sulking and skulking away. >> andrew, that irreveren

and lawyers and so on. the minister of justice of south africa became khasdar and the other side, unfortunately, with the tricks they always have and by putting pressure on the lobbies of the zionist lobbies, they were able to get qadir's lawyers , but as soon as his conviction was raised in the hague court and they are following up, it became global and international follow-ups took place after that, that is, even the country of chile entered the case, and 100 lawyers and lawyers filed their complaints in international forums . raising domestic votes and domestic convictions of countries can also be a prelude to filing a lawsuit in the court. hague international and other legal courts of iran already i think there have been objections to this issue and other issues, but now this issue has actually been raised in the global debate. today , 20,000 lawyers and lawyers of the country are going to file their own complaint about genocide and actions against humanity, and this will be recorded. and after that in

now lawyers can provide that quicker and they don't even need to go to a lawyer. which definitely, i think, helps in some ways narrow the gdp between the delivery of legal services. >> do you, as a lawyer, need to disclose to a judge that you used ai. i'm sure you're checking to make sure the case law that ai is quoting is real, but do you disclose that or do you disclose that to the client? >> so certainly, in my role as a lawyer, if i were to be before court it would depend on the rules and it would come up with the rules and the 5g9 circuit came out with a proposal that i disclose the youth of args. whilea is perhaps not necessarily the right approach, at the same time there were accusations of -- and we also the rise of a ian awareness we need to have with respect to using it. do we need to use it? it depends on the rules, but i think we'll reach a certain point where the assumption will be that we all are using it because if we're not, we're not performing our duties as leaders. >> and then finally, colin, give me just sort of a what's ahead for the legal pro

“i’m a lawyer, you have to trust me, i won’t do anything bad to you, i won’t offend you, i hinted atderwear , it’s not just underwear limited, the persistent suitor offered marina to buy a house and cover the expenses himself, but he took out a mortgage specifically for the woman, as a result she ended up with a huge debt and an empty apartment, which, as marina assures, the lawyer deceitfully took away from another friend yulia shchedinina. "the previous owner did not was able to survive the loss of property, she didn’t have time to turn on the faucet, she fell here, she couldn’t stand this stress, she didn’t give up the apartment. as a result , more than ten former clients of the lawyer contacted the serpukhov police without an agreement. the majority claim that vadim valikov took possession of their apartments. having united in a chat, the applicants came to the conclusion that this was the main lawyer's request. people lost their apartments when he met them, the one who... people drink, so in some mysterious way he became the owner, but i think that he also found out before that

this is lawyers. talk us through what is going on here. this this is lawyers.r all the lawyers _ what is going on here. this is money for all the lawyers out _ what is going on here. this is money for all the lawyers out there - for all the lawyers out there worried about being replaced it may reassuring because if you advising for instance a future of presidential candidate such as donald trump and you are giving your lawyer bogus legal citations using google barred, it's making things up and pretending things exist, so they call these hallucinations but for everything else itjust makes things up. as terrible, and what you need is an actual human lawyer to verify that. so, don't use ai for your lawsuits without having a human being jacket. it should reassure the lawyers out there that they are good to go for several more years. itruiheh to go for several more years. when we first heard _ to go for several more years. when we first heard about _ to go for several more years. when we first heard about this, _ to go for several more years. when we first heard abo

sing easing carol's the victim, as his lawyers would like him to leave. giving the best argument, saying that e. jean carroll new she would invite some backlash by going through with these, and donald trump campy held responsible for twitter trolls and hate mail that she may have received, saying he didn't condone the behavior and they don't know who those people are, trying to distance them from this. but it is a question for the jury, they are not have defined questions about sexual assault or defamation, another jury already determined that, it's just about how much money they will have to pay, and's they've spent two hours today to see if they can reach that today.>> jim, good to see you, just heard that we mentioned, trump stood up and walked out of the courtroom, described by onlookers as stormed out of the courtroom, you think behavior like that impacts the jury?>> i kind of doubt it for a damages trial, it's a liability trial each one of the moments has some import, but we are talking about post liability finding by prior jury, a lot of circus lig

lawyers are a weapon of choice for donald trump and without his stable of enabling lawyers, trump wouldve him the cover he so desperately needs for all of his courtroom battles. these lawyers give him some measure of reported credibility as the knowingly advances alarming and unprecedented legal theories. they also serve a very dangerous purpose of normalizing trump, as if he isn't the client that's already promised to be a dictator on day one and as if he isn't a client who brazenly seeks absolute presidential immunity to be able to cross the line with impunity. warren buffett once said, it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. if you think about that, you will do things differently. if you are a lawyer in trump world, those 15 minutes of fame could swiftly become five minutes of ruin and a lifetime of infamy. still to come on the katie phang show, swatting search. the republican-led push at the senate to get a handle on the search of political swatting attacks and the possible prison time perpetrators could face when, not if, someone gets seriously hurt by

who allegedly clashed or disliked now former trump lawyer joe tacopina.o to the source. thanks for being here, tim. >> thank for having me. >> what do you think of joe tacopina leaving trump's legal team? does it leave it weaker, stronger or no difference? >> um, in many ways no difference. i mean, he's essentially been on the shelf ever since he screwed up the first jean carroll case. he is -- i mean, he's very good at self-publicity, but not actually very good in the courtroom, and i think that that's something that we all saw during the jean carroll case. it's something they warned them repeatedly do not bring this guy in at all, and it's something that none of other lawyers -- none of us wanted to work with him. so he went and he did the jean carroll case. he mishandled it, in my opinion. he was put on the shelf and then they kind of left him there for several months. >> who is making those big calls then? you said you gave advice hey, don't use this particular lawyer. who decided to use him? >> well, i told boris epstein that this is not the guy for

to be and the lawyers and all stuff - for the powers to be and the lawyers and all stuff like - lawyersat i_ lawyers and all stuff like that. ithink_ lawyers and all stuff like that. i think sometimesl lawyers and all stuff like . that. i think sometimes you pour— that. i think sometimes you pour that _ that. i think sometimes you pour that in _ that. i think sometimes you pour that in the _ that. i think sometimes you pour that in the melting - that. i think sometimes you i pour that in the melting pot. there's— pour that in the melting pot. there's not— pour that in the melting pot. there's not an _ pour that in the melting pot. there's not an on—pitch - there's not an on—pitch advantage _ there's not an on—pitch advantage there. - there's not an on—pitch advantage there. we i there's not an on—pitchl advantage there. we get there's not an on—pitch - advantage there. we get an on-pitch _ advantage there. we get an on—pitch that— advantage there. we get an on—pitch that is _ advantage there. we get an on—pitch that is a _ advantage there. we get an on—pitch that is a tough - advantage

and i just want to get a lawyer's view of how the lawyers representing e. jean carroll handled this case. >> look, robbie and shawn did a fantastic job. but maybe we step back a second, lawrence, and think about why is it these trials mean so much to us? no matter what our point of view is, no matter who we are for or against, no matter who it is, this lawyer has made clear this is not just about e. jean, it's not just about donald trump, but this is a town hall, really, an american town hall on sex, power, truth, what our ethics are, whether we value when an 80-year-old woman stands up and says her life is worth something, whether we think there are some limits to presidential power. and i think that's exactly what robbie and sean got to, which is who are we as a people. it's interesting you made reference to the puritans, that's what they carried back too. is it important to tell the truth no matter who you are? does lying matter? does it matter if it's a woman who may not be in the prime of her life? is it okay to devalue her and push her aside? do the r

donald trump's lawyer said no. the president cannot be prosecuted for assassinating his political opponents unless he has already been convicted of the same charge in a senate impeachment trial. the most constitutionally important civil case the donald trump is currently litigating is he's appeal tonight in state supreme court asking to overturn the colorado supreme court's decision to ban donald trump for the presidential ballot. we will consider those cases tonight through the lens of law professor andrew weissmann's legal scholarship as well as the wisdom of three pulitzer prize-winning historians who are experts on the clauses of the constitution. but donald trump is now clinging to, trying to redefine through the appeals process. the cases that are going to live the longest in a life of defendant trump are probably the civil cases he is facing. he's facing multiple lawsuits by capitol police officers for injuries they suffered on january six. the verdicts in that lawsuit could cost donald trump hundreds of mil

why are the trump lawyers doing this, and is it effective? not effective, and the reason it's not effective is because the trump lawyers are pointing to an approximately five-hour gap between e. jean carroll revealing what donald trump did in "new york magazine" and donald trump claiming it was false, and what alina habba, trump's lawyer is trying to do here, is to say, look, you were attacked in this five-hour period before president trump said anything, and, therefore, you can't blame president trump for everything that has transpired since, but, john, we're talking about five hours on the one hand and years of harm that e. jean carroll very persuasively testified about on the other, and i just don't think the jury is going to care. the examination has also been marred by considerable additional bumbling by trump's lawyer, miss habba, who doesn't seem to know the basic rules of evidence on how to use these documents and information, so that is also a negative when you have a lawyer bumbling in front of a jury. >> this exchange between judge

there are many constitutional lawyers have argued this.cs that of course is not clear. and we could end up, and i've read the decision by the secretary of state in maine, on at least two of the lawsuits, the third one didn't make much sense, she is dead light dead right on the text of the law. and another thing people should understand is that section three of the 14th, about anyone engaging an insurrection, is part of an omnibus bill. it's a great omnibus bill that was debated for months and 1866 on the floor of congress. it was about birthright citizenship, equality before law, the right to vote, although that was couched in counting estates representation if they denied the right to vote. then it was barring people from holding office who engaged in insurrection, in the fourth part was about denying confederate date by the federal government saying we're not gonna pay those states debts. all of those bills were complex and complicated and they put them all together for a very large simple purpose, and that is what is going on right now

, his lawyer, listen, lawyer, get out of here, it’s better for you not to see, what will happen now,eave on your own? well, that’s it, now you too will rake as you say, you lawyers always agree like this, but i don’t know, i’m a lawyer for the first time, not bad, as for first time. listen, maybe i’ll open my own circuit here, money in advance, funeral repairs of the premises at your expense, what do you say? next, the suspect has woken up, but it seems that he is not very comfortable in his sober mind, so you can talk to your client, we will discuss, so, stand, i didn’t understand that you are hanging around here, you were fired, nest, there is a difference between fired and suspended, it was he who cut off the man’s head, the lawyer, oh, it will be difficult to prove in court that it was suicide, oh, it’s difficult, but you found the head, i have irrefutable evidence. and irresistible witnesses, yes, who told you about witnesses? wait, how did you know? i don’t understand, sit, girls, sit, pay attention , yes, yes, yes, do you recognize... this man, of course, he’s a criminal, we’v

he has three or four rows of his lawyers from his office. donald trump on the other hand had a smaller group. they had an extra row they weren't able to fill. donald trump walked in five minutes before this proceeding got underway. he unbuttoned his jacket, sat down, had a small talk with his lawyers here. he was quiet for most of the argument that his lawyers were making. he got more animated and started writing notes on a yellow legal pad when it was time for the special counsel to make their arguments. he heard things he didn't like there. the thing that he got the most worked up about amidst all the legalese that probably went over his head, is when his own lawyer had said essentially that donald trump was leading in all of the polls and this was about joe biden trying to keep him out of office. a sharp political argument. when donald trump heard his lawyer make that argument, he shook his head vigorously. that was the most animated we saw him during the proceeding. >> there were the political arguments. then, of course, the legal argume

oh, you're a lefty lawyer.king but also, i mean, just picking up point about up firstly, on the point about safe there aren't safe legal routes, there aren't any legal we create any safe legal routes. we create one, want, one, especially when we want, like we did with ukrainians. like we did with the ukrainians. um, you know, tens, hundreds of thousands of ukrainians came. we found them housing. found found them housing. we found them accommodation . as the prime them accommodation. as the prime minister at time we minister said at the time we opened our hearts, we opened our homes. huge homes. has it caused a huge problem? the country problem? has the country collapsed hosted collapsed because we've hosted those few hundred thousand people ? no, it hasn't, and people? no, it hasn't, and that's the point. so if we can do that for them, why can't we do that for them, why can't we do that for other countries? why can't syrians ? can't we do that for syrians? why afghans? for not why not for afghans? why for not s

right you don't need one lawyer you need a dozen lawyers and he laughed and he said sit down and i did and that was the beginning of uh probably a thousand hours with the one-on-one discussions that he and i had over the next two years while we fought his case initially it was for a removal order from the united states and then the connessit, unprecedented act issued an arrest warrant and demanded his extradition to israel to stand trial for the father, we became very close over the course of two years and abu marzuek is not just a founder of framer in the original head of the political wing of hamas, he's a brilliant political scientist, he's a brilliant internationalist, he's a travel gentlemen who has still does obviously tremendous experience in politics and reality and he understands, well that's it's quite interesting, quite beautiful, i want to look at if you give me permission ask your question about your twitter account or x, because you have a profile picture of... two hamas leaders there, i'd like to know why you have chosen that picture for your profile picture, sheikh ahme

and i said lawyers and hacks, because there are some people serving as lawyers for the president, and every person in this country, defendant or not, criminal defendant or not, is entitled to council as well as advocacy, including donald trump. that's what lawyers are supposed to do. the hack you just heard, who dishonored himself as a lawyer, wasn't doing legal advocacy, and he wasn't saying anything and that any honest legal expert would describe as advocacy that would help his side when. he was actually saying things antithetical to the known law, contradicting what trump's lawyers had said in the impeachment process and elsewhere. because as a hack, he wasn't really practicing law this week. he was trying to please donald trump, and throw red meat to the base, and live in the outside courtroom arguments, about who is tough, and who is autocratic, and who can take over, and who can kill. so, i understand the instinct to look away, or give it time, or even laugh it off. these are all types of coping mechanisms. but we're not just in the home stretch of 2024's i will race coming mond

.— sent to the lawyers.ly. you have agreed that| sent to the lawyers. putting it i simply. you have agreed that it was correct _ simply. you have agreed that it was correct for— simply. you have agreed that it was correct for the intonation in the seema — correct for the intonation in the seema misra case to be disclosed in subsequent cases because it was potentially helpful for the defence. therefore, in a case where the disclosure _ therefore, in a case where the disclosure officer was going to sign the disclosure form should he or she not ensure _ the disclosure form should he or she not ensure before the form is signed that the _ not ensure before the form is signed that the information in the seema misra _ that the information in the seema misra case — that the information in the seema misra case is there and ready for disclosure?— misra case is there and ready for i disclosure?_ thank disclosure? ultimately, yes. thank ou. just disclosure? ultimately, yes. thank you- just two _ disclosure? ultimately,

her lawyers playing examples in court. >> i have no idea who this woman is. this is a fake story, made-up story. i have no idea hot hell -- she's a whack job. >> but the jury was shown this photo -- trump and carroll greeting each other in the late '80s. in closing arguments today, her lawyers asking the jury, "how much will it take to make him stop?" they said trump's defamatory statements triggered "a tsunami of attacks," including death threats that are now "part of her daily life." carroll had testified she keeps a pitbull at home and a gun by her bed. she said the former president shattered her reputation, adding, "i've paid just about as dearly as is possible to pay." trump was not required to attend this trial, but he showed up in court four times anyway, treating it as a virtual campaign stop and a way to raise money. he was here today for closing arguments. but as carroll's lawyers spoke, he stormed out. "the record will reflect that mr. trump just rose and walked out of the courtroom," judge lewis kaplan said. the former president was not in the roo

you can see the trump pressure on his lawyers. the smart thing one of the many smart things that his lawyer should have done today is hammer the remedies not just the money. this corporate death penalty. why? the appellate division has already expressed skepticism about that remedy. on the earlier one count holding summary judgment. they put that on hold. why not surge there and make the judge second-guess they judge whatever you do on damages you can't do this. but, donald trump once again his own worst enemy. >> are you surprised there were negotiations between the defense and the judge because donald trump didn't want to take part in the closing arguments? the judge wanted there to be preconditions. donald trump's lawyers could not agree to them because he would not agree to them. go past the deadline so it looks like he is not going to be a part of the closing arguments. that he shows up and he ends up being part of the closing arguments anyway. are you surprised it went down like that? >> this is about political pageantry for

but i'm the president's new lawyer. >> okay. you're going to play trump's lawyers for the issue of double-jeopardy. the concept that you cannot be prosecuted twice for the same time. they are arguing that the impeachment qualified as the first instance of a prosecution. and now, this prosecution by jack smith is the second it ration. make your case, government. >> it's the impeachment clause, your honor. it's specific. if you have been impeached and convicted, then you can be tried criminally. it's not a wooden distinction. you have political judgment across the whole spectrum of american life. what you have without that kind of protection is exactly president biden indicting president trump, the very parade we're worried about. you need that decision by congress as a whole, for a grave action of prosecuting a former i high official. >> what is your response? we have heard from mitch mcconnell after the impeachment, the second impeachment, he was expecting there to be a criminal backstop. here, trump's lawyers say anything diffe

also, other lawyers can complain. add themselves to this lawsuit , here we are, 500 lawyers are gathered in this hall to file an official complaint against the crimes of the zionist regime in the international criminal court or icc, based on the rome statute regarding crimes and war crimes. it is interesting that this fake regime is in all international conventions. the world that is related to genocide and is a member of the united nations means that it has accepted these regulations but he is laughing at the beards of the people of the world. the legal complaint of iranian lawyers has several axes. the crime of genocide and infanticide, the destruction of hospitals and schools, the usurpation of land and the complete military blockade of gaza are among these cases. it is not just the crime of genocide. it is not just a crime of racism. the crime of murder. it is not collective, but different crimes that you put in front of you and him in all seven and eight articles of the bank criminal court statute. mentioning the crimes of all these crimes has the ability to be called an example for

a, he has lawyers. is he allowed to represent himself while having lawyers?hat are the rules around having to tell the truth? if he's on the stand, he's forced to comply or his suffer the consequences of perjury. but are closing arguments a different story? >> there is an axiom in the law that a man who represents himself has a fool for a client, and that is generally well taken advice. if you have lawyers and access to lawyers, and he certainly does, it would be best to avail yourself. he made a statement that he is planning to do this, likely because given the nature of how that civil fraud trial has gone, the outcome is pretty for ordained at this point. we already had judge engoron say that there is fraud here. the question is really penalty, and the nature of whether donald trump violated other new york state law. there is a foregone conclusion to this. the real question here is how much liability he is going to incur. the questions that he'll have to be answer in the court closing arguments are relatively technical. the attorney general's thinking over

we can't make it mandatory to hire a lawyer once, that is, based on lawsuits. to act contrary to this situation means that we will come somewhere, we want to shape the supply, concentrate it, fix it, it will happen once, for example, in the supply plan , because the guardian council has not yet approved it as a law, i use the supply plan in paragraph p article 20 approves that , for example, a person who is a legal employee of a company can work as a lawyer in the judiciary at the discretion of the ceo . this is interesting now. it has been approved. the guardian council has also approved it and came back. look, i have a problem with it in general. i have a problem with the principle. on the contrary , on the other hand, you are increasing the supply, then you are strengthening the tax system, and you want clarification. then, on the one hand, a person who has no history, on the other hand, mr. kormanzadeh says, "i know people, i know who they are, what they are doing , then we are opening a way." people, just because it is very interesting, this is already a p