Stay updated with breaking news from Alvarez transport. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
to overturn the red card he received against wales this weekend. the england captain's yellow was upgraded to red, after a high tackle — but a discplinary panel reviewing the incident this week found mitigating factors. saul �*canelo' alvarez will defend his undisputed super middleweight title againstjermell charlo next month. victory would make charlo, only the second man in the four—belt era to reign supreme in two weight classes... with the american moving up two weight divisions to take on canelo, who's form has been under scrutiny in recent fights. i understand what people say and i agree. i don't look my best in the last two fights. but i know why. i am ready for this fight. we will see what is going to happen. you want to see something different. itrailien what is going to happen. you want to see something different.— see something different. when i got the call, see something different. when i got the call. there _ see something different. when i got the call, there was _ see something different. when i got the call, there was nothing - see something different. when i got the call, there was nothing i - see something different. when i got the call, there was nothing i could i the call, there was nothing i could say but _ the call, there was nothing i could say butjump on it, let's go. because _ say butjump on it, let's go. because my whole career has been about_ because my whole career has been about chasing him. he has been a top luy about chasing him. he has been a top guy for— about chasing him. he has been a top guy for a _ about chasing him. he has been a top guy for a long time. and if you want
this judge said sorry, no incorporate chief of staff venue. i don't care that the venue has the jury pool that is predominantly against republicans and donald trump. irrelevant. and the judge is not going to recuse herself. it's a rarity when a judge does. those motion also be made, but they will be denied. the important motion is a motion to dismiss that this case is simply not supported by the law. in particular, the supreme court decision in the seminole case of u.s. vs. alvarez, the supreme court said false claims by politicians are protected speech under the first amendment the same way that hate speech, which we don't like is protected, the proper remedy is not criminalizing it is the counter
president, to unite our country and move forward towards national revival. it will absolutely be in the interest of the nation to heal and move forward by making sure a, we pardon trump and be we avoid the precedent of this type of politicization of the justice system. that is the clear right answer, and we go through these indictments from the original one in new york with alvin bragg. an individual who pledged to run for office on the pledge of investigating the man. who brought a first-class legal theory to the documents case which failed to mention the presidential records act. to this new one which criminalizes the seeking a good faith legal advice and calling that a conspiracy instead. and completely flaunting the president in alvarez. it's not an accident you see these cases at the same time. i'm sorry to say, people have lost their trust in the justice system have lost that trust for good reason. and it will make my job, as the next president to be that much more difficult to rebuild it.
arraignment. i am fairly confident of that. it's always dangerous to make predictions about the outcome in criminal cases, particularly when so much depends on these threshold questions. he is going to have a chance to take these issues all the way to the supreme court. one of the objections i have to the indictment is that it is trying to create new law here, not new law in the sense of these crimes have been brought in other cases but what smith is trying to do here i haven't seen in any other political case, the supreme court said in cases like alvarez that even a politician who knowingly lied in that case was still protected by the first amendment. but in this case, what the special counsel has said is that look, look at all the people that told him that he did lose the election. what they don't go into is how many people told him that he won the election. now, he didn't listen to the first group. i was in the first group
each of the other two indictments, i will say it again, this sets an awful precedent in our country. they are going full banana republic, third world on this, that sets a dangerous precedent. on this specific indictment, laura i think there are a couple really concerning facts. first they are using an unprecedented legal theory, alvarez was a case in 2012, still good law, that holds that public officials and candidates for elected office can make false statement the, period. so, he is by definition using an unprecedented legal theory here. i think the more dangerous part of this, laura, it doesn't relate to trump, it relates to the legal system. by criminalizing the behavior of four coconspirators, lawyers, who were giving good faith legal advice to trump, the job of a lawyer is to actually provide legal advice, trump was seeking little advice and this indictment push thes the boundary further on just legal grounds. and a general rule of
bringing these charges particularly when a lot of the things like for example this letter, there was going to be sent to the states that says that the electors were supposed to be different. and never went. what are they proving? >> that is a very good question. what concerns me is that many of the people celebrating the second indictment are just simply dismissing the implications for free speech. those are quite dire and real. this is criminalizing disinformation. the supreme court said that i a politician who knowingly lied in the case of alvarez was still constitutionally protected. while the department of justice is saying here is that we recognize that politicians could save most things but just not trump, because he was told they were false. what type of standard is that? you are entitled not to believe some people in favor of others. you have lawyers who said no, this was a stolen election.