the supreme court needs a public binding code of conduct. f the court does not adopt its own, then congress should require it to develop one. that code needs to have significant limitations on the types and amounts of gifts that justices are allowed to accept and on their participation in outside events or speeches with politically aligned organizations among others. the code also needs to include a clear standard for recusal, and require justices to make those recusal determinations public. one of the central lessons of operation higher court is how easy it is for the wealthy and connected to buy access to our justices. reasonable people can and should question how that access undermines the credibility of an institution tasked with providing equal justice under law. although reverend shank is in the proverbial hot seat today, the arrogance and benign neglect of the supreme court are the actual reasons these scandals persist. in closing, the people have given supreme court justices the power to expand or take away our fundamental rights, and

supreme court systems. almost none of which features active service for life. the federal government can and should learn from the lessons and their proverbial laboratories of the american democratic experimentation. tweleve, ditto on the comparative interaction front. almost no other modern democracy has a lifetime model of active service. america as a whole could learn from the experiences of the world and the democracy. and i am not taking the position on the supreme court cases from other agencies that were passing laws and thinking about amendments. we look to see what india, france, germany, injury -- england, israel, and so on do. 13, unlike current reform proposals to pack the court, 18 your proposals is not part -- not partisan. it is likely to spiral out of control of the party control shifts in washington dc in the future point. so i think the first court packing if we try to do it today, then it makes, and the republicans are in -- control, we have 16, then we have 26. and so this will not happe

in my book i quote a letter from someone who resigns their membership in the supreme court in a very emotional letter to the chief justice saying what you have done, you are not a court any longer. i can't -- only thing i can do is turn in my ticket to practice in the supreme court, so here's what i am doing. i also think many of us are involved with groups that care about different issues whether it is civil rights groups or environmental groups or good government groups and many of those groups overlooked the common threat to the things they want to accomplish from the packed supreme court. if you are a member of an organization like the league of conservation voters or civil rights group, use your merchant platform to say i think there's an organization, we need to have a position on what is going on with the supreme court and on dark money. the last thing is politically we can get rid of this dark money. if you look at the citizens united decision that let unlimited money pour into politics, 8-one they said by the way, this unlimited money we are letting poor into politics, it is

>> i thank most of the members of the supreme court are concerned about the integrity and reputation of the court. one of the reasons i am as obnoxious in their view as a happen about that institution is to create a sense of peril for them that if they k keep doing this they will keep getting called out and it's going to be bad for the institutions. i think the more that people challenge the institution the better and it ' wahl a letter from someone who resigned their membership in the supreme court in ainer very emotional letter o the chiefi justice saying what you guys have done, you are not a court any longer. the only thing i can do is to turn him my ticket to practice in the supreme court so here's what i'ms doing. i also think many of us are involved with groups that care a lotth about different issues whether it civil rights groups or sarmento groups are good government groups and many of those groups havegr overlooked e common threat to the things they want to accomplish from the packed supreme court. if you are a member of the organization like the conservation voters for the

i think most most of the members of the supreme court are concerned about the integrity and reputation of the court. and one of the reasons i'm as obnoxious in their view, as i have been about that institution is to create a sense of peril for them that if they keep this, they're going to keep getting called out. it's going to be bad for the institution. so i think the more that people challenge the institution, the better. in my book, i quote a letter from who resigns their membership in the supreme court in a very emotional letter to the chief justice saying, i just what you guys have done, you're not a court longer. i can't the only thing i can do is to turn in my ticket to practice in the supreme court. and so here's here's i'm doing i also think that many of us are involved with groups that care a lot about issues, whether it's civil rights groups or environmental groups, good government groups and many of those groups have overlooked the common threat to the things they want to accomplish from the pact supreme court. so if you're a member of an organization, the league of conserv

i argued to the supreme court. i know the landscape. i began to notice that a lot of the same groups that had been in the climate denial business were showing up in the court packing business. so that really got my attention and one day in the caucus we werere having lunch. perfectly nice day and i stood up and one of the decisions that had been renderedde by the couri said this is going to sound a little strange, but i think we've really got to think of the court in a different way. we can't just give it the credence that it's playing all this on the up and up. i think we havehe to look at it the way that you would look at a captured agency and think about a wayfi to try to fix it becausi think they are coming after us and serving other masters and all this is wrong and i basically got i quietly haggled back into my chair saying no. supreme court how we can possibly challenge its integrity and supported an institution and all that kind of stuff so that's when i thought okay i'm going to have to make this case, so i went back and started

despite a supreme court investigation by the marshall, the supreme court found no strategic reason for the league and the -- declared in writing, it's a leak was a protest of a decision. the second round of the chief justices report says that the leak was no mere misguided attempt at protest, it was a grain of salt on the judicial process. there is chief justice john roberts, leaping far beyond the evidentiary findings of his investigators own reports, and claiming that there was indeed a strategic reason for this leak, and that the six tryst egypt reason for that leak was a misguided attempt at protest of the decision. the leak was a protest of the decision, according to john roberts. -- and that is an outrageous stretch beyond the evidence of chief justice john roberts, accusing the opponents of the decision as having leaked the decision. now there is plenty of analysis at the time of which side could strategically profit by the leak of the decision and most analysts agree that the leak of the decision strategically helped the author of the decision, samuel alito to maintain his majo

no, i didn't believe that the supreme court would intervene. and now it turns out that the court think it is a hit and ruler. it should remember its place in the fact that he has to decide which we writes based on the legislation thought ha, already live, or a dairy is not fired. israeli government as breaking the law. a government that does not obey the law is an illegal government. it can no longer demand that citizens obey the law. those are a barry is not fired. israel movie plunged into an unprecedented constitutional crisis and this will no longer be democracy, nor will it be a state law. casanya. it's fet, love her as a former ever and he is raining. can i say she chose me now? my skype from televi, this is very dramatic ruling by the supreme court preventing netanyahu's ally from serving as a minister as this now set the stage for a showdown. between the prime minister, the governing coalition and the judiciary. well indeed it is a very dramatic moment. and the attacks on the supreme court and the judiciary system right now on the beside

_ supreme court overturned. that be fair to say? it _ supreme court overturned.it would be a pretty good observation but i also think you cannot forget the pro—life movement. they have just had their rally and thatis have just had their rally and that is something also that cannot be forgotten and of course the majority of the left leaning media choose to ignore, even showing the fact, that that takes place. it is pretty mixed and i think the fact that if abortion was to be a right, you should have been passed by congress and then signed by the president. ——it should have been. so now you have legislation created by very left—leaning supreme court at the time where they went 7— nine. i mean, seven out of the nine. i mean, seven out of the nine voted in favour of making abortion legal and the current supreme courtjust do not see it that way and they actually believe there is no support in the text of the structure of the text of the structure of the us constitution and so it was virtually something that was virtually something that was made up in order to have the

— what message does it send to the supreme court? yes, and i am one of— the supreme court?he supreme court? yes, and i am one of the people who - the supreme court? yes, and i am one of the people who was| am one of the people who was marching today and speaking at a big protest rally in support of the right to choose legal, safe, affordable, available abortion. so, this message to the supreme court is that you have now created a firestorm, a backlash, not only against the decision but against the court itself. it has undermined the credibility of the court because 50 years roe v wade has been the law of the land, it has interpreted the constitution of the united states has a having a fundamental right of privacy — — as having, of privacy and liberty and under those rights that it perpetrated that women and girls have, there was a legal right to choose abortion and that roe v wade was affirmed time and time again as it was being challenged by the antichoice movement. they are antichoice, not pro—life, because it is not pro—life of the woman. they are antichoice. and we're n

i still can't process in my brain if the supreme court ruled in your favor, how could this happen again? >> i'm not sure and john can correct me but if i were speeding down my street and i get a ticket and go to court and beat it, they are saying i was speeding down the street again so i'm getting a new ticket. i'm not able to base my new ticket, i've beat the one ticket last year, now you have a new one. so the cases were similar or identical with separate charges so the courts duty is to file a complaint and see if there is probable cause. the commission is an appointed body appointed by the governor who decided they had probable cause to pursue the case. >> how did that first case with autumn scardina and? >> two years ago in march we were ready to go into the deposition and as we sat down at the conference table with the lawyers on the one side and our attorneys on the other hand court reporters and videographers ready to take down every word as the attorney tries to basically destroy me in the next six hours they said we need to have a meeting and the meeting was to say this is the

i had to turn to the customer and say i have toel go to the supreme court and he looked at me and said yeah i've got to go to court on wednesday. but i don't needd a parole officer. just to understand the gravity of the united states supreme court. people say you want to take this to the supreme court and don't understand how it's just an incredible thing. >> i can't remember i think you mentioned in the book was the essential point to take it to the supreme court, was it about freedom of speech? >> we asked them to reverse the case based on the speech and the religious component. >> june 4th, 2018, you one at the supreme court and it was a 7-ruling. what was that like when you one? >> just as emotional as the day they granted but i was more surprised because it's three weeks before the end of the session and i was confident they wouldn't make the announcement until the last day. i happened to be watching scotusblog and they said we have masterpiece and it looks like it winds 7. i'm sitting at my computer like what just happened. the phone starts ringing, people are driving by the shop

supreme court, its record high disapproval right now. a lot of people this year. i don't know if they're getting back. those of, i think, a real change in how liberals view the court, which i think because of the war on court in the last few years, they've viewed at it as fundamentally an entity that was protected, even -- how do you think, maya, about the world of politics in civil society as checks on the court? >> so, one way is that -- and you're exactly right, chris, that for example, conservatives have been focused on elections because they can control the courts. >> as a means to an end. >> as a means to that end. they see it as power, and then think about the politics as a way of getting the powers of the court. and that has not been true for the most part, for a lot of democratic voters. i think that has shifted, and that approval rating is one element of it. and even for moderates, because i think the clear message is that you can have ideology on a court where the expectation was rule of law. and that is a shift that people --

i would have said no problem at the supreme court show up hold such disclosure laws because it would just be a natural extension of what the court at least since 1976 in the buckley versus vallejo decision has said is justified today though. i am concerned in part because the supreme court has changed justice kennedy justice ginsburg justice breyer justice scalia. these were all very strong votes and favor of disclosure justice kennedy and justice scalia republican appointed conserve justices justice breyer and ginsburg. more liberal democratic point of justices there consensus on this issue. and no longer there's consensus by the end of the term. justice breyer will be gone. it's not clear to me that there's still a majority that has the same commitment and we know at least two of the justices the justices thomas and alito have expressed great reservations about campaign disclosure laws and in the banta case, i think we can add some of the other conservative justices as well. the next question in this to me really goes to the heart of your book. is there any way to come that disinfor

i do not consider myself an expert in the supreme court. i'm a documentary filmmaker. i think is a i think it is surely true that he is now one of the most that he is a strong influence on this supreme court many people call it the thomas court. it's obviously really the roberts court, but i think he is perhaps the strongest influence at the moment and that's why it's important for people to read the book and see the movie and understand him whatever their politics and we really wanted the film to be on pbs because we wanted a broad swath of america to see him and understand him and we want that for the book as well. themes that came out in the book in the interview. is that justice thomas likes to take the longer view? i think that's true. i mean we call them created equal because his life is really based on the way. he sees the declaration of independence those core principles and how they realized in the constitution. you can understand it if you follow his life story. i mean, you know. i think yourself, but maybe not all your listeners now. he's born in pinpoints,

if you visit the supreme court, i urge everyone to do so. e suggested, it is better to see them. the lines are not as long now because the audio is available. visit the court. when you visit the court, you will find a motif if you look carefully on the plaza in the building and in the guilt -- in the gift shop. that is turtles. there are turtles everywhere. they are engraved into the walls. yes, you can buy them in the gift shop. why turtles? it is not because the justices look like turtles. a justice is supposed to be slow and deliberate. the supreme court and justices who make it up are stable to be individuals who value in serving what has been, and when changes need to be made to law and society, making them gradually, slowly, not shaking things up. there is no doubt from an objective point of view, whether on the left or right, there is no doubt this court is shaking things up. it is reversing constitutional rights. in the dobbs opinion, roe v. wade, a 50-year-old precedent. it has reversed other presidents -- precendents. it may do that

the supreme court has also ruled on the legality of settlements. the occupied west bank, which were legal under international law. but with this government being backed by extreme right in parties, it's unlikely the demonstrations will have the impact the purchasers hope. for now, it's being discussed in a parliamentary committee, if and when it gets the cadets it parliamentary floor for vote at its past. it will be a significant erosion of a system of checks and balances on this right when government, iran con our desert, west gruesome, at least $39.00 people have died out. the 2 buses collided in central senegal. the accident happened near the town of caffeine that's about 220 kilometers southeast of the capitol. president mackey sal has visited the site and declared 3 days of morning. he has promised to hold a government meeting to discuss road safety. vote counting is underway and benny's parliamentary election, where opposition parties were on the ballot for the 1st time since 2015, but voter turnout for sunday's vote was low. was upper digit

it is surely true that he is one of the most -- a strong influence on the supreme court. many people thought of the roberts court but i think he is perhaps the strongest influence at the moment and that is why it is important for people to read the book and see the movie and understand him, whatever their politics. we want to the film to be on pbs because we wanted a broad swath of america to see that. >> host: one of the themes that came out in the interview is justice thomas likes to take the longer view. >> guest: that is true. we call the film "ceated equal: clarence thomas in his own words". 's life is based on the way he sees the declaration of independence, those core principles and how they are realized in the constitution. i think you can understand it if you follow his life's story, you know this yourself but maybe not all your listeners, he's born in georgia off the coast of georgia so english isn't his first language, in rural poverty. his father leaves before can member, his mother raised him. when he was 6 or 7 years old, they moved to savannah and he went fr

i'm not an expert of the supreme court. i do think itt is true that he is now one of the most strongest influence on thee supreme court. they call it the roberts court butge i think perhaps he is the strongest influence at the moment. that is we encourage people to read the book and see the movie that whatever the politics we wanted a broad swath of america. >> one of the themes that came out in the book is that justice thomas would like to take a longer view. >> i think that's true. >> but the way he sees the declaration of independence come i thank you can understand it if you follow the life story. english is not his first language and his father raised him. when he is abouted six or seven years old they moved to savannah and he said he went from rural poppy to urban squalor. when the food on hungry. and then after two years and his grandfather to raise. but then the vacation is over. and then have to go to school everyday with discipline and hard work but he is functionally illiterate with the third grade education. and

supreme court. sure she's a wonderful person. but she has no law enforcement training or experience. she's in charge of securing the building called the supreme court building and the justices. that's what she does. that's who they gave this to in this most egregious breach of security in the history of the supreme court, as the court's statement says. something else that didn't happen here, if you want to do a serious investigation, you're going to talk literally to every person who may have had access to whatever it is that leaked. from what we can see so far, while they may have talked to 200 people, they didn't talk to "x" clerks, they didn't talk to the very universe of people who may have done the leaking and left the court to go onto some great legal job. they didn't talk to those people. they didn't call the fbi because you know what would happen, a real case would have happened. they would have actually had the criminal process. someone stole government property. someone mishandled governme

rich: the supreme court's been in the spotlight lately with landmark decisions including its overturningt year. that trend might continue in 2023 as the high court has already heard arguments in significant and controversial cases. and all this against the backdrop of chief justice the john roberts in his year-end report highlight aring concerns about justices' security. at a protest outside their homes and at an alleged aa saws nation plot against justice brett kavanaugh. mark smith joins me now, a member of the supreme court bar. mark, thanks so much for joining us. i want to get to some of the cases. first off, title 42. that'll be, i think, in february. when you look at what has had some opposition at the court, neil gorsuch in his dissent against continuing with title 42, he said the court should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency because the elected officials failed to address that emergency. how much do you expect title 42 to make, remain in place considering you've got some serious court oppositionsome he was joined in his diss

defense chb marriage act and all marriage bans we know (inaudible) own words that this new far right supreme court can not be trusted to up hold precedent or protect our civil rights. in contrast to the court this week's victory comes at a time when nation wide support is all time high. 71 percent of all americans from all walks of life acrautss dem graphics geography and party lines agree loving committed couples deserve equal rights equal justice and (inaudible) equal dignity under the law. it is big victory to be celebrated but not the sunsitute for full lived equality for all lgbtq plus people and will not end discrimination across the country or the hateful rhetoric. less then 2 weeks after the mass shooting in colorado springs 5 people murdered and dozens injured we continue to morn the lives loss and support the community shattered. all people deserve to feel safe and respected in the place we call home. we thank you senator pudia and senator feinstein for colleagues and leadership. tomorrow we fight for a world healthy just and equal for all lgbtq plus people. next is a friend and colleagu

supreme court justice.so led to security problems for all of the justices who ruled in dobbs. this is such an important issue to get right and chief justice roberts did not seem to take it seriously. this very lax investigation. the marshal of the supreme court didn't seem to have the skills required an outside was consulted. not what should have been done if you wanted to determine who did this. >> brian: what do you try to do this decision is coming down the pike arguely on the left horrified about it. exercise the democrats to get to the polls and maybe they stopped a red wave. i think there is no other conclusion. but, if you are somebody that wants to change that decision before the decision becomes final in late june. you leak it out and put all types of pressure and maybe the conservative side of the court backs off lead many people to the non-supreme court justices. >> steve: ultimately, during the investigation somebody that they interviewed could have lied. it could have been a spouse of a justice

who believe the supreme court is biased? who believe that congress will wheel and deal with the government and who believe that they are right in stopping the law from governing? well, international condemnation of the attack has been swift to us. president joe biden called it outrageous and tweeted, i condemned the assault on democracy and on the peaceful transfer of power in brazil, brazil, of democratic institutions, of our full support. and the will of the brazilian people must not be undermined. the french president emanuel micron pledged his support to the brazilian leader tweeting the will of the brazilian people and the democratic institutions must be respected. he called the assaults and the unacceptable questioning of the result of a democratic election. argentina's president called for regional unity against attacks on democracy. alberto fernandez, voicing his repudiation of events in brasilia. he went on to offer lula, his unconditional support in the face of what he called an attempted coup. marcia cobra is the

if you visit the supreme court, i urge everyone to do so. ggested, it is better to see them. the lines are not as long now because the audio is available. visit the court. when you visit the court, you will find a motif if you look carefully on the plaza in the building and in the guilt -- in the gift shop. that is turtles. there are turtles everywhere. they are engraved into the walls. yes, you can buy them in the gift shop. why turtles? it is not because the justices look like turtles. a justice is supposed to be slow and deliberate. the supreme court and justices who make it up are stable to be individuals who value in serving what has been, and when changes need to be made to law and society, making them gradually, slowly, not shaking things up. there is no doubt from an objective point of view, whether on the left or right, there is no doubt this court is shaking things up. it is reversing constitutional rights. in the dobbs opinion, roe v. wade, a 50-year-old precedent. it has reversed other presidents -- precendents. it may do that wit

who believe the supreme court is biased? who believe that congress will wheel and deal with the government and who believe that they are right in stopping the law from governing wilderness? yes. varies from the amanda alvarez. pentium foundation, he says bolton, roland, the violence must be investigated for sure. that was a, depends on the part of both scenario, most radical supporter. and that's something that both scenario while he was the powers in the late that particularly against the supreme court. because the supreme court was always trying to enforce if no roles against both scenario, far rifles issues. so that's was hopefully a pick wait that you know, by both scenario himself. certainly, it's a result of the consequence of miss behaviors present that didn't really follow the roof, the chief of the police off brasilia anderson, fer it was nice this afternoon on the right after the invasion of the 3 main buildings in the front part, the national congress and the presidential palace, he's currently florida, so 40 inch

he has said that the supreme court is biased. he has cast out on the electoral results saying that there the election was stolen and he has kept silence, was silent, which means that he has been in a, in other words, supporting what these people are doing. now this is more serious, an analyst was telling me than the capitol hill storming because the not only storm congress, but also the supreme court. and the presidential palace all in one, which is a very shocking image. and a very anti democratic image for brazilians watching this all over the country. and one thing, what we must know also is that these supporters are not only in brazil. yeah. they have people camped out in front of military barracks all across the country. and these people firmly believed that they assured that the election was stolen and that they should fight what for what they think is right. no matter how monica many thanks, we update want to get on a care if they're in rio de janeiro. will industrial reaction to events in brazil has been swift and widespr

i think on that particular point the supreme court has evolved thinking about false speech rethinkingase in 2012 gun united states versus alvarez. it's a very case about a guy who lied about one a congressional medal. the court in a divided opinion said this law cannot be enforced against this person. along with the court did a lot of interesting things. one of those was a certain kind of false speech whether there is a compelling government interest get a fun stand, take an oath to tell the truth and you live. proven your light you can be subject to criminal prosecution. in justice kennedy i believe it was in the alvarez case says important to protect the integrity of the judicial process and related law enforcement purposes. someone's going to lie t like tt we can prosecute them. it is a punishing someone for false speech. fraud. if someone defrocked another person takes their money. to defraud an elderly person of their life savings but we allow that we don't allow them to say free-speech or black mail. thatat speech is not protected. the first amendment is not absolute. it's not a

there is a supreme court sanctified right to privacy in this country. and there has been a d criminalization of homosexuality. so if anyone is reading what else, i'm getting a lesson for what they are doing, privacy and then frankly, badges against the law. and i think investigations ought to be made into people who are openly flouting that they are violating the laws and the police that seem to be a now, how are they sending people to whether or not the supreme court does hand down a ruling, a lot of this comes down to acceptance within society, doesn't it? that is a big factor been and in fact, one thing we have brought up time and again in despite previous judgment by an a pretty good direction by just returned to 9 months in the government ought to take steps to better include and integrate members of the job, you take your community into indian society. no. such a deals that have been undertaken. please cannot understand it. and we feel that so do do expand your question slightly. i believe that the vast majority of indian society is dollar and the

kherson region, which were forced to stop working due to the temporary russian occupation, the supreme courtof ukraine issued a corresponding order, the work of the kherson court of appeal is being resumed, as well as the belozersky velikolexandrivskyi and novovorontsov district courts of the kherson region, despite the full-scale war, last year ukraine managed to hold a competition to the high council of justice, which on the eve of the russian invasion ten members left at once , which made one of the most important bodies of judicial power invalid, and it was extreme untimely, in particular, due to the fact that the supreme council of justice is the only body of the judicial system that is authorized to appoint and dismiss judges, including judges of traitors who in the temporarily occupied territories went over to the side of the enemy and until the moment of release continue to receive salaries at the expense of ukrainian taxpayers. the supreme council of justice must also appoint a new the composition of another important body of the higher qualification commission, therefore , whether

and it shows the force of the federal police in brazil and the supreme court. so wilson, i tried to use the whole 10 you to week and they supreme court in brazil. but the supreme court and the federal police are independent institutions and are stronger than ever. now a 2 dollar lottery ticket has changed the life one very lucky person in the united states, the winning ticket, the 2nd largest jackpots in american history. $1350000000.00 was bought at a convenient store in the name of the window will be able to choose between one on payment of $720000000.00 or an annual payout over the me out a 0. these, your top stories russian forces have launched michelle's and.

i've been upheld by the supreme court. it means that they can be executed at any time, but we should keep in mind that we don't have the rule of law and the due process in iran. so, international reactions press shared can still save my mom and his lives. but again, we know also that the running authorities need to execute need to implement the step, and that is to spread fear into society because they haven't managed to control the pro this. now about 4 months, they're still continuing trying to the war in ukraine. keith has rejected russian claims and its forces have killed more than $600.00 ukrainian soldiers and an attack in the eastern city of commer tours. green called the assertion from russia's defense ministry propaganda may of commodore says an air strike did not cause any casualties. russian force also shine a city about moot as they tried to push further west. moscow was ended a cease fire or at least in a legit one over the orthodox christmas holiday. use russia, analysts causing anger in vilnius, told us both

the supreme court delivered a surprise spread. it declared an oil exploration agreement with china and vietnam, dating back nearly 2 decades unconstitutional ownership. teddy casino is one of the former congressman who filed the case in 20 o 8. the constitution was very clear it's, it's basically very categorical. that exploitation of natural resources are reserved for filipinos and filipino corporations being views almost the entire south china sea, 3000000 square kilometer area as its territory. the $25.00 agreement covers less than 5 percent of that, but includes waters, manila considers its own a claim reenforced by an international ruling. in 2016 oil exploration in the south . china sea has been on and off the government's agenda for years, while a 25 agreement languished in court. the 2 countries signed another deal in 2018, only for it to be terminated 4 years later. so the big question now isn't if marcus can succeed, but whether such an undertaking with china is possible at all. and the said the ball is in china's court

how can supreme court in brazil go about doing anything if mr bolsonaro is in the us?us, and there is a big question mark on whether he will come back to brazil. he left before the end of his term. he is under another investigation, him and his children, who are politicians. he denies any involvement with that, said, "i had nothing to do with that." but this battle over the electoral system has been going on for a long time, since he was elected. this is an electronic voting system, which is praised internationally. he has been questioning that and people say he has been preparing the attack in case he was defeated in the election, which happened in october. so there is a question mark — will he be extradited if is eventually indicted? it's a long way off. he has also applied for italian citizenship. if he got italian citizenship and he went to italy, then he wouldn't be able to be extradited by italy. it's a big question mark and there is a question mark also by the government of luiz inacio lula da silva, the left—wing leader who has been in power for less than two w