asserting the fifth amendment mean something completely different in a civil proceeding. it can in ways be used against you whereas in a criminal proceeding the jury s told you can t use that against a defendant or witness. and so again, we believe that this is a big day for us, a big day in seeking accountability, and for the sake of the case we are bringing, it s a big day for discovering much much more evidence about what donald trump did to inspire, insight, and a mad mob at the capitol. as you go forward, what do you expect the timetable to be in this lawsuit? if we survive the court of a appeals, and frankly both sides will appeal this decision in the supreme court, and if we survive in the court of appeals upholds the district court decision that is no immunity here, only a question for the supreme court. as you know, they don t have to
take the case. and in many of the cases around the 2020 election and donald trump, the court decided not to take the case, and so if the supreme court decided not to take an appeal from donald trump we would go right to discovery and depositions, but we do expect that whoever comes out on top in this ruling that it will be appealed in the supreme court in that decision and that decision will be pivotal. what is your reaction to the ethics committee today announcing an investigation, a formal investigation of george santos? we don t need the ethics committee to remove george santos from the congress, but we do need a republican to come forward for that expulsion motion. i say that, lawrence, because it s important that the ethics committee look into what federal courts and state courts and even international court in brazil is looking into, but george santos has copped to most of these allegations. he s admitted that he never went to the college he said he went to. he is admitted th
of faking it till you make it here, and until that changes, people worry that what happened in theranos could happen again. james clayton, bbc news. with more on the verdict here s our north america correspondent, peter bowes. this is a very mixed verdict. yes, she has been found guilty on four counts of fraud and conspiracy, but also not guilty on four of those counts as well and the jury couldn t reach a decision on a further three charges. and it s evident that these jurors sitting for some seven days during their deliberations struggled with these decisions. and i think that is symptomatic of how difficult a case this was and perhaps reflects on how it s been followed extremely closely by silicon valley, with people coming down very firmly either in herfavour or against her as far as the details of this case were concerned. and it is symptomatic at least as far as some people see it of how
prince was not telling the whole truth when answering those questions, so i cannot see him being advised to go to america. this is a civil case, not criminal, so there is no extradition available, so as far as the prince and his lawyers are concerned today, and all for rests on this ruling. 0ne are concerned today, and all for rests on this ruling. one of the things i suspect they will uses there is a precedent for this judge to kick this case out. it happened in the case of an extremely talented, well known and well respected american attorney at the top of the tree, he argued this point and succeeded and of course one of the things that happened in virginia roberts oh virginia giuffre s original claim was that she mentioned royalty in the claim, they will say it was in the contemplation of the claimant and her lawyers that there was a member of royalty involved, and he will say whatever the american lawyer has just opined that you signed that
new york, which would be a bombshell case. the alternative would be some sort of deal before that, an out of court settlement, possibly meaning a payment to virginia giuffre, which would potentially come with costs too. giuffre, which would potentially come with costs too. with me now is barrister andrew taylor from apex chambers, who for over 25 years has specialised in criminal defence. this case being brought by viginia guifree is a civil case, which requires a lower standard of proof. just on that point, if andrew loses this bit of the civil case, can you see prince andrew s lawyers agreeing for him to testify in court in new york? i for him to testify in court in new york? a, ., for him to testify in court in new york? ., ., , york? i cannot imagine him being advised by york? i cannot imagine him being advised by any york? i cannot imagine him being advised by any lawyer york? i cannot imagine him being advised by any lawyer to - york? i cannot imagine him being advised by a