and it can work well for some property owners. but campaigners worry it is open to exploitation. so, currently, the way the law works is that a tenant can only take action against their immediate landlord. and what that does is it creates a real blueprint for property owners to put a sham company on the tenancy agreement, to simply cram as many tenants in as possible, ignore fire safety features. and it is a question of when, not if, there will be a number of people dying in one of these death trap properties. this has created a big legal question. who is a landlord? is it the person someone signs their contract with? or is it the property s owner? the supreme court is about to make a decision on a case which could have a big impact on who people can take legal action against. those representing landlords in the court have concerns, too. of course, landlords should be responsible for who they let to, but there are simply things they can t control. if someone has taken a property and li
but campaigners worry it is open to exploitation. so, currently, the way the law works is that a tenant can only take action against their immediate landlord. and what that does is it creates a real blueprint for property owners to put a sham company on the tenancy agreement, to simply crowd as many tenants in as possible, ignore fire safety features. and it is a question of when, not if there will be a number of people dying in one of these death trap properties. this has created a big legal question. who is a landlord? is it the person someone signs their contract with? or is it the property s owner? the supreme court is about to make a decision on a case which could have a big impact on who people can take legal action against. those representing landlords in the court have concerns, too. of course, landlords should be responsible for who they let to, but there are simply things they can t control. if someone has taken a property and lied to them, what would you expect them to do? i
open to exploitation. so currently the way the law works is that a tenant can only take action against their immediate landlord. and what that does is it creates a real blueprint for property owners to put a sham company on the tenancy agreement, to simply cram with many tenants in as possible, ignore fire safety features. and it s a question of when, not if there will be a number of people dying in one of these death trap properties. this has created a big legal question. who is a landlord? is it the person someone signs their contract with or is it the property s owner? the supreme court is about to make a decision on a case which could have a big impact on who people can take legal action against. those representing landlords in the court have concerns, too. of course, landlords should be responsible about who they led to, but there are simply things that they can t control. if someone s taken the property and lied to them, what would you expect them to do? it s not possible for the
they considered completely unprincipled was to just only take on the case that was brought to them, the 15-week ban, but his colleagues said you do 15 weeks here, next week somebody is coming up to us with a 12-week ban, then 16 weeks, then nothing. we have to solve it now. what kind of attitude that is, we have to take that on now. that s not an attitude that you would think would be born in the constitution and what the chief said is if it s not necessary to decide a question, then it s definitely necessary to the to decide that question, but he had no takers for that position, john. no, he certainly did not. kate, joan, thank you so much to both of you. a big legal question as the investigation into january 6 continues, does donald trump actually believe his election lies? does that matter? our next guest says, no, it s irrelevant to proving guilt. and a supermarket employee is arrested for allegedly assaulting rudy giuliani. we will show you the moment in
lawyer tells mueller trump dictated the statement. so it evolves and changes. if you re bob mueller, you know a hell of a lot more than we do about this. you have all the documentation and the like. again, beating a broken record, but the president keeps making the case that he should sit down with mueller. the big legal question here is not collusion. that s not really in statute here unless you re talking about anti-trust law. it s conspiracy to commit a crime. the crime is obtaining help from a foreign power, which could be construed as an in-kind campaign contribution. this is fascinating because of the prospect a subpoena could come in. yesterday, jay sekulow mentioned if a subpoena comes in, they re going to file a motion to quash. that s going to go up almost certainly to the supreme court. the supreme court is 4-4 in terms of appointees from either party. the potentially decisive vote