the special finding was tt he was insane.ld have been guilty. >> that was n t question that was posed to the jury. i understand if the jury was asked is thisern insane in their answer was simply yes in one situation in respect to another account. but the jury was asked about t elements of a particular crime. their verdict wasot guilty by reason of insanity. right? >> well, yes, your honor. not guilty by definition means uid commit the crime and the on reason that we have said you are not guilty is because you are in fact insane. >> what do we do whathe not guilty part of it? a speci verdict form just as your form. the judge did in fact instruct them that they could say not guilty. it's not likeeoe as how to force the jurynto giving off its general power not guilty for any reason. rt of the reason that we think this case isifferent, the seemingly facially inconsistent verdict cases in this case the jury doesn't do that they made special determination. >>ju looking through the brief spirit i did not see another state that allow

are those the o tt is you are concerned about? >> well, i think we are concerned -- >> all. >> we are concerned authe entire process. we are concerned about theact that we don't think that there's meaningful csent when somebody didn't even vote. 50% o the personal injury claim has voted here and so the 97% depends in high voting percentage but our role is in mangure that the process is working as it's supposed to and we are n the lawyers for these individual claimants. they havehe ownr lawyers, some of them before the case but weir a speaking for the ia that if they he property rights that are not property of the estate, then that -- >> i understand that. i guess i'm saying abo the property rights, you're at largeo what we call invisible voters who just didn't vote, w didn't respond? >> yeah, we think that that's definitely not consentn a way that we think would make this waiver appropriate. >> thank you. >> juic kavanaugh mentioned the couple of decades of practice of bankruptcy courts approving these kinds of things and i'mm jus

in fellas you said the tt laid out a makeover.rewer it was following macomber's understanding of income and in horst it sd much of the same thing i won't bother with the quote, each of those cases have reported torp be sol. you justisagree with that? i guess. >> i disagree with theseas if you look at each of the cases in the court designed realization on the particular facts but usingifferent standards that macomber hadic articulated, take for example you said the court was applying the interpretation of income but th court in bruhn disavowed the aspect o make a trip macombe that you have tort separate the economic gain from the underlying property. >>sertainly talked about contl did you think it was deluding himself that's howhe court perceived what it was doing shouldn't that account f something. >> look at the court statement in griffith he said macomber's theoretical bases had been undermined and it had in effect been limited to the stock dividend and issue there andt did not have control with respect to other sto dividends an

and tt they could come o of nowhere wh respect to that party. we will have a briefrom that small business. everybody. >> and uil it is recognized. >>he could have impacts on the parties tha are outside and even that person who is bound by the president could appeal it. and that will be under your view and that many people without notice, any notice or any chance to be heard are bound. >> and so my concern what i was focusingn, with respect to litigaons that it is nots though every partyil stand to get back by those cases to know about it. and look at the brief that was filed. >> and ofourse they won't have that notice a when that government comes for them, they get to take their case to court. >> and congress has often expressed a preference for not having these issues resolved piece by piece in dnt courts around the country. >> and that is provided for formal and informal rule makin and adjudications. it is most rules that will be resolved that way. for a long time thoserocesses have not been used, and they rely on the rule making. really now t

we can ta tt into account. in some of the situations yo are going to be able to look at the agency's experti d make a judgment that this is in their favor and eyave made some really good points. in other contacts with the the agency wants you to defer to his own view, which in this case is we ran out of money. it sure would be if we can impose a fine and continue to monitor these people and make them pay r it instead of us. >> justice thomas? >> i guess what i am struck by, mr. clement, and this follows from the skidrething. skidmore is not a doctrine of humility. chevron is. chevron is a doctrine tt says , you know, we recognize there arsome places where congressional progression has run out and we think congress wouldhave one of the agency to do something rather anthe court. we accept that. that is the best reading of congress and also because we know in our heart of hetsthat agencies know things that courts do not. that is the basis of chevron. you take that doctrine of mility and you put on top of it starry

why is it okay for the state to say y cannot do tt? >> two points, your honor.s a matter of sensibility, a jury is supposedo find facts. if they tell you to opposite things it makes a lot of sense to say that t jury has not in fact fou this fact. it is the burden to inty why estate cannot do this. it is the strong presumption that the state has authority over its own criminal lawsnd procedures. unless there is something in the fundamental right to a jury trial. >> i guess my question is, isn't this a matter of federalaw as to whether orot what is happening here is an acquittal or not in acquittal for the purpef the doubleeordy clause. >> what estate order or finding or something like that, the effects that it has for the purpose of double jeopardy is timately a federal questn. what the state order is or whether it exists in the first place, that is not necessarily a federal question. smh versus massachusetts. the court didol that this mid- trial judicia acquittal trickled the double jeopardy clause. it said if massachusetts had a rule that this was not the final

that will be fitting with the delegatio tt they have provided. thiss a little bit different from kaiser, to emphasize that it is always important to look at any indicio that chevron does not mean to apply. what i'm thinking here of our things like situations where t nature of the statutory question the court has said in other cases, it is not one tha you would expect them to give to the agency and through the major questions and i don't want to rule out other scenarios. and congress can adjust and react and take statute specific steps and support shoulday attention to that and they should not dictate to this and th instead it is rebuttable. >> and is there something about that matter now? >> and so i think that already, they a in an area where they are under burden touff and that the made clear where they need to explain why those shouldn't alter what they a doing in that kind of revised approa. and they also frequently if it has come from rule making will have to run thatrocess all over again andhat it will take a substantial investment ofhe age

that brief did not really get in tt issue.he pmary issue in the case did not reject that particular provision. i also say going backo did georgia have a problem a the time, well, no, georgia wanted everything to stay how it was. from the prosecution's perspective,tot what it wanted. right. ere was, in fact, to the extent that youccept these as verdicts, you don't accept george's repugnant see rule, and prison for lif. ,he only one who had an incentive to challenges was him and he did. >> the defendant to challenge the guilty verdicts are you saying, maybe you could get rid of the repugnance you rule lowing him to say that the guiltyul are repugnant. i do not see how wks the other way around. s theory was that georgia ruled that ashe georgia supreme court, the highest arbiter says there is no verct at all. that ishe theory behind this rule. >> before our inconsistency cases, there may be a lawyer standing where you are sing that our state has decided when a jury comes back with two inconsistent verdicts, we will say thathere is

mitchell: tt is one of many reasons. there needs to be an organized effort to overthrow the united states through violence. justice jackson: a chaotic effort is not an insurrection? mr. mitchell: we did not concede it was an effort to overthrow the government. it was shameful but it did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in section the. justice jackson: thank you. >> thank you, counsel. mr. murray. mr. murray: mr. chief justice, we a here because the first ti sce they were 1812, our nation's capitalame under violent assault. the attack was incited by a sitting presenof the united states to srt the transfer of presidential power. engaging in insurrection against the constituti, esident trump disqualified himself from public office. as we heard, president trump's main argument is this cour should create a special exception to section three tt one apply to him and him alone. heaid section three disqualifies all both baking -- both breaking insurrectionists accepted former president who never before upheld -- h

murray: tt s right. ere were a flood of amnesty requests before section three went into place -- went into effect because people understood those people would be disqualified the moment section three was enactess they received amnesty. justice sotomayor: what do you do with the consequences of your position? if colorado's position is upheld, there will be qualification proceedings on the others and some of thoseil succeed. some will have different stanrdof proof. someilhave different rules about evidence. maybe the senate report would be accepted because it was hearsay. maybe it is beyond a reasonable doubt. i would expe, ough my predictions have never been correcta od number of states will say wever the democratic candidate is, you are the ballot -- you are off the ballot and others, your off of the ballot. it will come down to a handful of states who decided the election. that is a daunting consequence. mr. murray: theac that there are potential frivolous applicio of a provision is not a reason -- ief

fletcher: i take tt point. the fact this rulemakg happened has not gone unnoticed in the community of people who are interested in firearms. many people havevailed themselves of the right to chlenge our interpretation. the supreme court is hearing it. i agree, not everyone is going to find out but we uldo everything government could ssly do. >> let me ask you about the nction of the trigger. you liken it to a stroke of the key, throw up the dice, a swing of the bat. those are all things people d a function of the trigger. do people function triggers? maybe somewhere in fifth gra grammar i learned tt was an intransitive verb. people don't function things. th may pull, throw things, but they don't function things. it is a very old statu and designed f an obvious problem in the 1930's. al capone. people with a single function of the trigger, that is the thing itself, it was moved once. that is what they wrote. maybe they should have wrien something better. e might hope they might write something better in the futu

when do we do tt? >> and with respect t the category, it is true that they have not ruled out that ty could receive the appropriate circumstances. >> and so you would have u take that? >> i wouust have them reiterate. and it is not as though any is going to. >> nobody knows what that means. and they would complain about that too and so i dotnow with that and is that another factor? >> it is another important check of ensuring there is a delegation here and that they have used that appropriate procedure. >> and so they will be out? >> they would rse a much harder question with that and do they rule in or out? >> they have not ruled them o and if you thought -- >> what would you have us do? >> and their intprive rules is my question. >> i don't think that you could treat theas class. and the inrptive rule. >> setimes they are required and sometimes they aren't. and you keep those in, i'm sure. >> yes, we certainly think that they will have that core application. its not the same ability to take these inp

i love tt have heard much about what you are concerned about. quick sweet ndf have to fundamentally change our business model. each company will make their own judgment about how they will come into compliance. th say this will promote speech. this will discrimina othe basis of content. what we might do in the interim is less do only puppy dogs. until we can get this straightened out. these same companies are getting hammered. these laws me impossible untiweake so much material off of our sites that we say we are not be inconsistent " what do you think the work consistency entails? >> it is not part of the port -- pulmonary injunction. targeting editorial discretion. i have not met anybody who thinks the near times is 100% nstent in his editorial policy. i think it would be the most obvious violation. >> thank you. >> le's assume i agree with you about this. possibility to modi t pulmonary injunction. when the lower courteeall the details, they might not have the same skepticism that you startewi. there are lots of ways to writ the dision. what

i know they suggested tt it is different. the view areore like than they are different another one is rational basis. the second point, i tnk that this is critically important. theres a nexus environment that exists inhe public forum set of cases. the question for the court is not whether the restriction at issue is reasonable in any purpe. even if you want to accept the idea that the forums not the government registrar but the government legislation system, i think the problem for the government is this clause reall has nothing to do with that. >> why are you saying that? he just made a very robust argument about why thiss advancing the purposes of the trademark regime. >> the purpose, you can see ccthy section 19 to, the goal is to me registration as coincidental as possible. >> it is the trademark regime of which registration is a part he had trademark is not aut expression. trademks not about the first amendment and people's abili to speak. trademark is about sourc identifying and preventing consumer confusion. it seems t

is tt what you are saying? >> i don't think it would map onto our theory in this case because it sounds like and i'm not aware of all the fas t i understand >> i think th's a problem in this case. being aware of the facts. >> exactly, thats one of the reasons why this facial chalnghaseen very confusing to defend because we don't know what to defend against. >>n that score, we have a bit of a problem witfaci challenge because different legal principles apply in different factual circumstances and there are many different defendants and plaintiffs here. they have different services. that's a complicating feature on our facial challen. let's choose another one, what about section 230 which preempts some of this law. how much of it and how do we account for the complication in the facial challenge? >> wantenswer the question? -- why don't you answer the quti? >> i think it presents it. >> how can we do that without oking at 230? >> some of this was briefed at the search stage. i don't think section 200 30 preemptio

as you stay within the lines, they do want to promote an open dialogue and a fair diagu it shows y tt some conservative voices have flrished on these websites. ben schapiro is killing it on facebook. we do want a broad discussion, but there are some things that are just o othe line. again, we had a debate about what objectionable means. but think our clients are tting pressured to be careful about things that are damaging. in that context, they want to air on the side of -- >> doesn't it also hold that on ur vw, part of the editorial discti would be that it could use algorithms designed specifically to try to attract teens to addiction or suicide, or -- that would be part of their editorial discretion as well. i do not mean to cast dispersions on anyone, but i think it is a natural consequence of your position. >> that would be precd activities with that very different website with a business model that i do not think would stay in business for long. it is possible that if you had a fferent concern and identify a diert government interest that the government might be able to do someth

juicjackson: what is your argume tt it is not? your reply says -- i think you say it did not involve any organized attempt to overthrow the goveme. mr. mitchell: that is one of many reasons. there needs to be an organized effort to overthrow the united states through violence. justice jackson: a chaotic effort is not annsurrection? mr. mitchell: we did not concede it was an effort to overthrow the government. it was shameful but it did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in section three. ice jackson: thank you. >> thank you, counsel. mr murray. mr. murray: mr. chief justice, we areere because the first time since they were 1812, our nation's capital came under violent assault. the atckas incited by a sitting president of the unite states to disrupt the transf of presidential power. engaging in insurrection against the constitution, president trump disqualified himself from public office. as we heard, president tru's mainrgent is this court shou cate a special exception to section three that onapy to him and him alone

whatever concession tt may have been made would not have raised resjudicata. it is consistent with the notion that defense including presidential iuny including separation of pers, couldn't be raised. there couldn't be a criminal ocs and defenses could be raised is pretty straightforward. there is no such thing as -- no concession in thospreedings what the district court did in this case that no presidents criminally immune from criminal i don't think it is there in the congressna record. >> let me go back and you isolated that one sentence. isn't it true that marbury versus madison has distinguished between discretionary official ts and minteal which they mean imposed by l a it's the latter one iwhh he can be held liable? and i want you i want you to address u.s. v. johnson and the commonwealth of virginia. thfit one deals with the speech and debate clause. the supreme court said in essence, all of the evidence dealing with the speech and debate he can still be prosecuted, that is that ngssman, or i think it was conspiracy to defraud, d then in the commonweal

there is an expnaon for why they used tt term. they knew there was a lot of different ways to activate a trigger. that is the way it has been understood ever since. the interpretaon am giving you is one that many other officials gave it at the same time. second, even if you said we are going to focus just on the trger, the function is not just some action. it is the motivation for which it fulfills its purpose. the way you know that is how everyone reacts when someone attaches se nd of contraction. or you attach aishing reel, where you flipped a switch and it spends and turns the trigger over a or again. the function is exactly the same. the lever is moving back and releasing the lever eryime. but my frid cognizes that is not the function of the trigger. it is fp of the switch or a push of the button. that allows a firing sequence. >> i take it that they defined it as the trigger. could it have defined bump stock itself as a trigger? >> i would not define the bump stock itself as the trigger. this is a differentrgument but related

we cannot tt in response to this law. the leaders in texas we able to tell your constituents if you , like your website, you can keep it, we are not going to threaten. they cannot pull out based on regulation. >> so even if we could read it a different way, you are sinit is necessaryi ess this dovetails with my concern ou us not having state interpretations or an plication to really understand. caread this differently. it seems like it is fitting into the set of thingy're not allowed to do. you cannot censor people based on the viewpoint of the user, u nnot censor them on the basis of the viewpoint being exprse and you cannot censor them based on their caon in your state or another part of the ste. i guess i do n nessarily see that in the same way. you cannot just automatically do that, i guess. >> it seems to me quite clear th it is designed as the hotel california provision. a poison pill. you cannot leave texas, even if you want to try to do that as a waof showing this is a wayf regulating activities. so, i do think th

>>ouan tell that person tt our speech forum is not open to you.nd i think that's whatakes it differt that texas is focused on speech-orriented platforms. if you're in the business of speech and you have sobo, and again this is not sort of other prohibid statuses. this is viewpoint. and so you e a notorious anti-semite, we don't want you to participate in this conversation. >> religion then. >> sure. and i want to have a catholic website. i can keep off somebody who a notorious protestant. want to preserve -- i want to preserve the future the discussion on my forum. it's a private forum a t government can't tell me a a private party let the protestant into the catholic party. >> can i ask you about section 2? i don't think anything has b said about it so far. so you say that section 2's individualized explanation requirements violate the first enent because they impose a massivbuen, right? that's your argumt? it seems to me that europea union has imposed exactly the same, pretty much the same individualized explanation requirement on anybody who op

tt your case, isuppose? devastation it causes. we had thousands of people having to be evacuated from their homes, many deaths not accounted. president boric said the death toll will increase unfortunately. there is preparation as well, the president called a two—day mourning period which underscores the impacts of climate change, so many crises and people in distress and worried about the future but it could come to a head. due president boric�*s credit he has a climate forward agenda and he will take a tragedy like this and figure out a way to bring the country together and highlight the importance of putting chile on the map in terms of its climate ambitions. thank you once again for joining us, hannah. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. let�*s look at some other stories making news. the daughter of a woman who died after being attacked by two dogs in essex has told the bbc that she believed they were the banned xl bully breed. esther martin, who was 68, died at the scene of the attack

tt is one way to put it. you have questions presented, you're goingo able to decide whenever you think is fairly included. i'm pointing out as an artift of the way my friend litigated this case you do noha a record on anything that maybe teresting for intermediate scrutiny and it is not my fault. it is based on their reprentions to the courts below that they did not want to get into intermediate scrutiny. th wanted to tee up expressive >> could you articulate what you think is the appropriate standard if not salerno? >> it is whether the statute has a plainly legitimate suite. >> could you again explained to me why if you win here, it does not present a section 230 problem for you? >> if we win, we avoid section 230 problem the reason is t 230 is a protection against liability. it is a protection against liability because congress wanted us to operate as publishers. it wanted us to exercise editorial discretion. it gave us liability protection area the viali protection and first amendment status do not go han

they did not u tt power to police ballot acce uil the 1890's. by the 1890's, everyone had received amnesty. >> looking at justice's thomases -- justice thomas's question, estate shall not -- immunity, will not process it without due process. on the other hand, it augmented federal we congress has the power to enforce . wouldn'th be the last place you would okor authoriti for the states, including nferate stas to enforce the presidential election process? that seems tbe position at war with the whole thrust ofhe 14th amendment and very ahistorical. mr. murray: we would locate the state's authority not in the amendment would in article two and that is plenary. chief justice roberts: you have no reliance on section three, is that what you're saying? mr. murray: we have reliance on section three so far as articl two gives states this broad power to determine how their electors are elected and that power implies a narrower power or constitutional qualifications. chief justice roberts:inero power you're looking for is the power of disqualification. th

. >> if i may, owhat you tt the morewe have a a -- ty are concerned.or spending>>ti ofou sitting down for a meal. >> like any disagree o plenty of things. enuragingerisagred. t itopportunity to remember tht ca a than hing aricans. ility e w ts the eof hned.ord to fut through smo uig edbanng ddihr that diee disagrnts.at much g. included ha sta againstehinda anyone. >> allegations have, ourr get>>isg ainst donald truour y better ceing ideas. americis so much better. .lll woodruff in washington. ofookie ve aftoriesbu put female back in theanges how we e story.00li of hu shere she data atursther. y ese hin i>>learned to probl'd ethiopia in h a fry they love the famouse. t- evolution of codevelopment nguagewhen aut t language very you are c daygt those critical ioni r n was just taking themqu adeachange. matter k d guiour iaffected by w tse t are elution evolut newshour, i amumtura york. - on the be c mor sh't 'al fcinating. recognized byon. .or funding t i'm >> friends of the newshour. the ford foundation. id funding was provided a support f thes individua

tt is declining at the moment. it is becoming _ declining at the moment.ment. te 3 becoming much less strong. we are seeing that influence over through south america actually declining since late last year so i suspect that is not the driver in this case.- driver in this case. and in terms of _ driver in this case. and in terms of mitigation, - driver in this case. and in| terms of mitigation, what driver in this case. and in - terms of mitigation, what are the best options for them? tt it is climate change, the first thing we need to do is reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. 0ur emissions last year were the highest on record and they keep on going up. we need to turn that around very quickly. if we are looking at more local solutions, clearly we need to put in place more effective fire warning systems, rapid response systems and get people out of harm's way very quickly and stop putting people in harm's way rice pudding buildings infire harm's way rice pudding buildings in fire prone areas. __ by buildings in fire prone areas. —— by putting buildings in

. >> and that's more sinister,s tt where he knows he wants to talk about the president of francalee but he can't remember his name. so he sticks in an old president of france and hopes that goes over. but everybody seesy sees that. . fillng to signal down a second. does he really know that he's just filling in a name or he doesn't know? i think does. know, whiche.sn't would make it worse? >> i think he doesn't know. i and that's the next point i was going to get to. i agree with you. it's tha that you t you are theo to know. and joe concha pointed to that. you are the last to know pointe, everyone around you sees it, but you're defensive and it's sad ifu are de you weren't pres, it's sad if you're losing it, you don't want to admit it. so you get and that hostilitytiy and that anger you saw last night is very typica tlast nl of somebody that's showing slippage. >> but let me tell you, the worst thing of all slime tee are his doctors? how dare you not come forward? f where's the information? where's the mri? we've been we've been asking fother thr the mri for three orr four years now. we

tt but in terms of the disruption this is causing?f they can move it away to date from homes, _ is causing? if they can move it away to date from homes, then _ is causing? if they can move it away to date from homes, then everyone| to date from homes, then everyone can go home and at least they can deal with the bomb at their leisure —— a today. in deal with the bomb at their leisure -- a today-— -- a today. in terms of the advice eo - le -- a today. in terms of the advice people have _ -- a today. in terms of the advice people have been _ -- a today. in terms of the advice people have been given, - -- a today. in terms of the advice people have been given, and - -- a today. in terms of the advice people have been given, and it i -- a today. in terms of the advice - people have been given, and it seems that they have been successful, although i wonder why there has been although i wonder why there has been a delay and why it is not moving and on the way at the moment, but in terms of the risk to property, if it was to explode, and the

they saw mark they would reflect his own sec believing there will be systematicou but above and beyond tt. e neutral requirement consent can be tat as suspect simply because tyave some circumstances more than others and the dision last and jack nis as well, he decided lel issues and lower courts perform a likelihoodf confusion analysis and the court said just scandals involved the court can take into account the entiti a unlikely to mock theirwnroduct and therefore consumers areess likely to think and work like it was by jack danie fm the might have been if it were more a lot of toward it and i dn't suggest because of cretion betwe viewpoint and likelihood of confusionheikelihood of confusion standar was discriminatory or constitutionlyuspect and introdes, how it is too strong work but something like havoc of the trademark law and it is to be avoided in the trademark. >> the extt of government's authority t attach conditions in the constitutional la and whit dangerous. as justice thomas pointed out the situation to cover up this situation but is unlike any of the other cases we have passe

tt is party but in what way, what evidence do you have of that?— do you have of that?stemic problem - do you have of that? it is a i systemic problem throughout do you have of that? it is a _ systemic problem throughout society. to give you an example. there is a policy code prevent which is a counterterrorism policy and it means that our teachers, our doctors, counterterrorism policy and it means that ourteachers, our doctors, our nurses, people that are in spaces of safety are forced to become terrorist cops, they are forced to report on signs of possible extremism so we have children as young as six in this country being referred onto this counterterrorism policy. that referrals tend to lead nowhere, 90% of them lead nowhere but we have a government that has accepted the recommendations of a so—called independent review but it was not really into prevent and that policy is discriminatory. the fact that the government is comfortable with that policy and successive governments have been comfortable with it means that there is a real lack of understanding of the harm a

tt be a good result for you here toniaht? ., be a good result for you here toniaht?ht? if we are at or around our national _ tonight? if we are at or around our national polling _ tonight? if we are at or around our national polling average, l our national polling average, we will be delighted, that'll be the first time — we've been criticised in the past by members of the media, for that'll all change i think this evening, and people will realise we've arrived. absolutely we will be pulling in both these by—elections at the third—largest and we are delighted. the third-largest and we are delighted-— the third-largest and we are deliahted. ., , ., delighted. you said before you will stand in _ delighted. you said before you will stand in every _ delighted. you said before you will stand in every seat - delighted. you said before you will stand in every seat and - will stand in every seat and challenge the conservatives, are you ready to reiterate that promise? are you ready to reiterate that romise? :: , ., ., ., promise? 630 seat, the whole of encland, promise? 630

tt many years of military rule?live and have access to aid. and — alive and have access to aid. and the _ alive and have access to aid. and the world has to put itself togather— and the world has to put itself together to end this collective punishment, and not to wait until— punishment, and not to wait until we _ punishment, and not to wait until we see another mass killing _ until we see another mass killing and genocide through hunger, _ killing and genocide through hunger, particularly in darfur. and _ hunger, particularly in darfur. and i— hunger, particularly in darfur. and i see _ hunger, particularly in darfur. and i see there is new mechanism that the government has to— mechanism that the government has to have somebody who really hacks _ has to have somebody who really backs inside defence, and the us needs _ backs inside defence, and the us needs to move the needle in terms _ us needs to move the needle in terms of— us needs to move the needle in terms of the bigger diplomatic effort — terms of the bigger

tt those conspiracy theories.r all of her career, and for a lot of time she remained very apolitical, which again was a wise business choice, you don't want to alienate any part of your fan base. but around 2018 she started to endorse a couple of democrat candidates on the 2020 she endorsed joe biden for president over donald trump, so i think that's part the scene of other suspicion. i think we are already a little bit apt to question celebrity romances, some of them turn out to be not exactly what they seem, so when you are already inclined to mistrust that, then you have a kind of political concern, maybe this person is going to bring that giant fan base to somebody who is not the one i want elected, that's where conspiracy theories grow. so there have been a few conservative figures, some on the far right fringe some closer to the mainstream, or to the trump mainstream who have started to suggest maybe it's a big conspiracy to draw attention to the game and then right after the game she will endorsed joe biden

but so too, i would think tt provision would be in some tension with what you just said. if congresha the ability to lift the vote by a t trds majority then surely it cannot be right thaonhouse of congress can do the exact same thing by a simple majority. mr. mitchell: there certainly is some tension. and some commentators he pointed that out. justice kagan: then i must be right. [laughter] mr. mitchell: we don't think the problem fal. though t trds provision that allows cones to lift a disability is something they can do a part in power. congress can create a mechanism by which the insurrection issue could be determined by some entity, each house that has the abity to judge the qualifications of the members or in a decision from congress it would be whatever congress enacts. each feral prosecutor had the authority to bring the writ against an incumbent offici and seek his ouster from office under section three b it was still subject to the amnes provision in section three of the 14th amendment. we acknowlge the tension but do not think it i insurmountable obstacle. >> if

back out live, with a look aty we the southern border inve eagl le pass.ss the migran tt suspected ofurder in this case remainsur behindde bars, right nown president of united states said he is eyeing eat executiv he action. eagle pass, texas the governor was sicask of waitingy for action to be taken so he put up razor wire fences.ck >> than thank you alexis. i want to put something on the screen that was 70 to meant by a georgia lawmaker. he posted on social media about this, he -- this is from georgia. this alleged killer entered the country in 2022 illegally, in new york the following year he was arrested and released in newn york. aftenewr that, he went to georgia where he was cited lifting.e shite was then such oceansed to show -- supposed to show up for court that is the bench warrant that was then issued for his arrest because he was a no-show. in court. for the shoplifting in georgia, you have an illegalrg borderia crossing, you have got criminal actions and arrests in new york released, le leaves thest state, goeats to georgia, commits shoplifting then within a few months all

tt is close to it. so we have always been very vulnerable. _ been very vulnerable. it is the record for us. i _ been very vulnerable. it is the record for us. i think- been very vulnerable. it is the record for us. i think in - been very vulnerable. it is the record for us. i think in this i record for us. i think in this new— record for us. i think in this new era _ record for us. i think in this new are it_ record for us. i think in this new era it is better to be part of an— new era it is better to be part of an alliance than being independent and neutral. sweden will brina independent and neutral. sweden will bring nato _ independent and neutral. sweden will bring nato its _ independent and neutral. sweden will bring nato its modern - independent and neutral. sweden will bring nato its modern air- will bring nato its modern air force and submarines specially adapted to the baltic sea. it gains a security umbrella backed by nuclear deterrence. the prime minister of sweden described it as a historic day for his country. from russia so far,

there was hope that, oh, well, maybe this is going to be impactfuit was tt thisl. it turns out the houthis were emboldened by that attack,y because it didn't have any impact. and they got more aggressive to us, flagged ships in the region. sohips it seems to me that the strategy, starting with appeasement, bribin sg the mullahs in iran, that didn't work. now being nice to them and saying, all righthat didnow, we're going to hit all your proxies. don't make us hit make ut you. >> we really don't want to be in conflict with you. that that policynflict w seems n failed dramatically. and i don't think this is going to make a difference tonightmak i hope i'm wrong. i'd like to see the iranians stop, but i don't see itke to s. >> well, look, sean, i think you start from the right point of view, whiche is that we don. want a major war in the middle east for reasons. i mean, we've been there for a long time. exper obviously had a bad experience in a lot of ways. but also we've got bigger problemsiea lot ofave bigg in co but the way you avoid a war el not by just pleading a

to the soviet during this period, machine guns, aircraft cannons, tt pistols, and sniper rifles weretula arms plant, russia's oldest defense enterprise, produces guided missiles and much more. even under catherine ii , a chamber of rare exemplary weapons was established at the plant, now it is the tula state museum of weapons. on february 26, 1892 , the beginning of a new science, virology, was laid, and we owe this to the russian microbiologist and plant physiologist, dmitry ivanovsky. that day he spoke at a meeting of the russian academy sciences with a report on two tobacco diseases: ribuch and mosaic disease, which he studied to understand the mechanism of infection. ivanovsky filtered the sap of diseased plants through a porcelain filter and a chamberlant candle, but contrary to this. the infectious beginning did not disappear. from this he concluded that the causative agent was a small bacterium. quote. able to pass through a filter due to its tiny size. using a regular light microscope, the scientist was able to see and sketch plate-like and crystal-shaped clusters of viruses,

tt still worrying? dolinsky is at the desk. ., , , still worrying? it has been undoubtedly a auiet desk. it has been undoubtedly a quiet transfer _ desk. it has been undoubtedly a quiet transfer window. - here in the bbc sport centre we're keeping across those live deals with our football reporter simon stone. firstly simon, one we are expecting to happen, a loan dealfor armando broya, the chelsea striker who's got two goals this season, but fulham, simon, need a striker. yes, we are expecting it to be down to the _ yes, we are expecting it to be down to the deadline that is looming now, but we _ to the deadline that is looming now, but we don't think there is any problems _ but we don't think there is any problems. we think that the transfer will he _ problems. we think that the transfer will be done by the time we get to that deadline. it's an interesting deal because even at the start of the week, — deal because even at the start of the week, people were talking about £50 million for them, nobody was interested — £50 million for them, nobody was i

tt had detailed issues about knowing that we have these issues.- that we have these issues.a month, given all the problems. that we have these issues. if after. a month, given all the problems we know— a month, given all the problems we know about — a month, given all the problems we know about the post office, you decided — know about the post office, you decided to ask for a pay rise for the chief— decided to ask for a pay rise for the chief executive of the time, that indicates you were not sufficiently over the deeds? | that indicates you were not sufficiently over the deeds? i was tremendously _ sufficiently over the deeds? i was tremendously over _ sufficiently over the deeds? i was tremendously over the _ sufficiently over the deeds? i was tremendously over the detail. i sufficiently over the deeds? the; tremendously over the detail. i'm more over the detail than my colleagues who are german because i'm an accountant, ijust do that, but this was very early on, in my discussions, and there was a letter drafted by hr and they said, would you go along and talk to the sec

tt that in the states. they 'ust don't want to vote for him._ want to vote for him.r him. it will come back. if you look at what - want to vote for him. it will come | back. if you look at what happened when he ran in 2016. you had republicans who had much bigger votes than 26% and went he michigan. the media want to prop up nikki haley in this presidential conversation. it's the end of the heads, she is not relevant in conversation. i can try and find talking points to make a relevance, but trump didn't get 68% in 2016, he was at the lowest pad, 58% and still went michigan. i guess people are saying this protest vote may or may not matter, history says it won't matter, at least in the history side, and nikki haley reminds me of the ex—wife thatjust showing up to the ex—wife thatjust showing up to the family functions even though she is not invited. that is what she has come to at this point. t is not invited. that is what she has come to at this point.— come to at this point. i can't believe he's _ come to at this point. i can't believe he's got _ come to at this po

tt’s would put in the legislation? it's funn ou would put in the legislation?lation? it's funny you mention that. it'sjustj would put in the legislation? it's i funny you mention that. it'sjust we funny you mention that. it's 'ust we have a bill coming * funny you mention that. it's 'ust we have a bill coming towards _ funny you mention that. it'sjust we have a bill coming towards us - funny you mention that. it'sjust we have a bill coming towards us quite| have a bill coming towards us quite soon so i'm interested how we could amend it. to soon so i'm interested how we could amend it. :, . . soon so i'm interested how we could amend it. :, , , . ,, :, soon so i'm interested how we could amend it. :, , , :, ., soon so i'm interested how we could amend it. :,, , :, ., �*, amend it. to step back on that. it's funn , amend it. to step back on that. it's funny. one — amend it. to step back on that. it's funny. one of _ amend it. to step back on that. it's funny, one of the _ amend it. to step back on that. it's funny, one of the ways _ amend it. to step back on tha

tt was so many people who knew him? it was unbelievable. — so many people who knew him?able, really. _ so many people who knew him? it was unbelievable, really. when _ so many people who knew him? it was unbelievable, really. when i _ so many people who knew him? tit "tn—.s unbelievable, really. when i read that this morning, i woke up this morning and i had a look at the news, and i thought, i could not believe what i was reading. i phoned a few of my friends. strictly professional, i said to them, tell me this is not true, but sadly it was. i'm taken back by it as i'm sure a lot of people are because he will be so missed. t sure a lot of people are because he will be so missed.— will be so missed. i appreciate you comin: will be so missed. i appreciate you coming on — will be so missed. i appreciate you coming on the _ will be so missed. i appreciate you coming on the programme - will be so missed. i appreciate you coming on the programme and - will be so missed. i appreciate you - coming on the programme and sharing your memories with us. astronomers have discovered w

tt stopping the sharing of those accounts. , ., ., , accounts.larity we _ accounts. it is not the only similarity we are _ accounts. it is not the only similarity we are seeing i accounts. it is not the only i similarity we are seeing with netflix. that crackdown on password sharing will take effect in spain. there is also an increase in costs, so it saw its numbers of subscribers full. its average revenue per user went up. that piece is a bit of good news for the company. we are also seeing that they will be a big foray into the gaming space to disney. in an announcement, the disney ceo said that the company is acquiring an equity stake in fortnight games. that is on top of an announcement we already saw this week about the launch of the new streaming service that espn that is set to take effect in 2025. , ., , ., that espn that is set to take effect in2025. , ., ,, , in 2025. the problem for disney has been it has been _ in 2025. the problem for disney has been it has been trying _ in 2025. the problem for disney has been it has been trying to

tt or a rivalwho opened a plan in december-— december.r — december. it is our number one whisky palyer in _ december. it is our number one whisky palyer in the _ december. it is our number one whisky palyer in the world. - whisky palyer in the world. also— whisky palyer in the world. also note number one whisky player— also note number one whisky player in— also note number one whisky player in china. we're here for long _ player in china. we're here for long term _ player in china. we're here for long term. as a consequence of we have — long term. as a consequence of we have opened our innovation hub based _ we have opened our innovation hub based in shanghai. they are battlin: to hub based in shanghai. they are battling to be — hub based in shanghai. they are battling to be the _ hub based in shanghai. they are battling to be the top _ hub based in shanghai. they are battling to be the top spirits - battling to be the top spirits maker. the potential of an emerging market like china makes it a key battleground in that fight. the azure s

tt’s is more than just a landscape, to some it is a lifeline.— some it is a lifeline. some it is a lifeline. it's massive to get people outdoors. - some it is a lifeline. it's massive i to get people outdoors. socialising with other people that have gone through the same difficulties. cheer through the same difficulties. over 20 ears, through the same difficulties. over 20 years. rob _ through the same difficulties. over 20 years, rob battled _ through the same difficulties. over 20 years, rob battled his addictions which destroyed his life. drugs and alcohol sent me into isolation. t alcohol sent me into isolation. i was a very lonely person. all alcohol sent me into isolation. t was a very lonely person. all of my relationships went downhill. bitter relationships went downhill. after man solo relationships went downhill. after many solo walks, _ relationships went downhill. after many solo walks, he _ relationships went downhill. after many solo walks, he has - relationships went downhill. after many solo walks, he has now created sober snowdonia, a walking group of

in the soviet era , machine guns, aircraft cannons, tt pistols, and sniper rifles were made here.erprise in russia, produces guided missiles and much more. even under catherine ii, at the plant... he and mosaic disease, which he studied so that understand the mechanism of infection. ivanovsky filtered the sap of diseased plants through a porcelain filter and a chamberlant candle, but contrary to expectations, the infectious principle did not disappear. from this he concluded that the causative agent is a small bacterium, quote, capable of passing through the filter due to its insignificant size. using a regular light microscope, the scientist was able to see plate-like and crystalline clusters of viruses. called the ivanovsky crystal, but they were isolated and photographed much later using electronic microscope thanks to ivanovsky, scientists have learned where many come from and how they are transmitted. various diseases, learned to fight the viruses of rabies, smallpox, fever, dengue and hiv. today, more than 6,000 viruses have been described in detail, and in general there are

tt particular sectors where those rises are being seen?— are being seen?t the data broadly. _ are being seen? if you look at the data broadly, there _ are being seen? if you look at the data broadly, there do _ are being seen? if you look at the data broadly, there do seem - are being seen? if you look at the data broadly, there do seem to i are being seen? if you look at the | data broadly, there do seem to be wage rises across—the—board. it seems to be quite broad—based, not just private or public sector, it seems that wages are going up across—the—board. that is something that will concern the bank. this across-the-board. that is something that will concern the bank.— that will concern the bank. this all toes that will concern the bank. this all aoes back that will concern the bank. this all goes back to _ that will concern the bank. this all goes back to the _ that will concern the bank. this all goes back to the tightness - that will concern the bank. this all goes back to the tightness in - that will concern the bank. this all goes back to the tightn