necessarily do? they won t. i mean, it s a victory in terms of the principle. in terms of evidence gathering, it s not really a victory, because bannon is going to continue to defy the committee. he has now paid a price for it, but it s quite clear that he s not going to testify. and i think this just underlines how difficult the committee s job has been. because he s not the only one who has defied the committee, and look how long it took to get to this state. at least nine months to get a conviction for a committee that is running out of time. as i say, the principle is important, but they re not going to get any evidence out of him. so, drew, how do you think all of this will be viewed within the trump orbit. so steve bannon didn t testify. he stood outside the courthouse each day listing his political grievances, but it s a far cry from going medieval, which he said he would do. right. or be able to get up on a witness stand and spew his rather or even just stand
committee. how much of a victory is it if they don t get bannon in front of them, which they won t necessarily do? they won t. i mean, it s a victory in terms of the principle. in terms of evidence gathering, it s not really a victory, because bannon is going to continue to defy the committee. he has now paid a price for it, but it s quite clear that he s not going to testify. and i think this just underlines how difficult the committee s job has been. because he s not the only one who has defied the committee, and look how long it took to get to this state. at least nine months to get a conviction for a committee that is running out of time. as i say, the principle is important, but they re not going to get any evidence out of him. so, drew, how do you think all of this will be viewed within the trump orbit. so steve bannon didn t testify. he stood outside the courthouse each day listing his political grievances, but it s a far cry from going medieval, which he
government. the committee is trying to be transparent and make a record of what happened with issuing a report that lays out all the events that led up to january 6th and the aftermath and which proposal would be okay for that not happening again. the justice department is not issuing a report. if it plays on the field, it is purposeful to find out who, if anyone, other than the ones who have been charged and prosecuted, is reliable for the events of generally sixth. there is a lot of overlap even though they have different goals. the overlap is in evidence gathering. according to some, the justice department has been too late figuring out who wants to interview. there are people criticizing the committee for not turning over those transcripts. i think both sides are trying to get at something. the committee has been disappointed that only two of the four people are recommended for congress charges charged by the justice department.
contact with virginia roberts, then or any other time? none whatsoever. there might not be an outcome today from the hearing but prince andrew s lawyers will be hoping the case can be stopped in its tracks. otherwise it opens the door to a phase of more evidence gathering, investigations, and public scrutiny and the possibility of prince andrew facing questions in an unprecedented civil trial in new york. sean coughlan, bbc news. the labour leader sir keir starmer has been setting out his party s vision for power if they win the next general election. in a new year speech he accused the conservatives of losing voters trust, promising that labour would govern based on the principles of security, prosperity and respect. i believe that the best still lies ahead for this country, but only if we have the courage to create a new britain a country in which you and your family get the security, the prosperity and the respect
what the president just said. he s with the president of poland and samantha power about war crimes. the single most important thing that we can do from the outset is keep the democracies united in our opposition and our effort to curtail the devastation that is occurring at the hands of a man who, quite frankly, think is a war criminal. and i think will meet the legal definition of that as well. for as you know, kelly, for a while the u.s. was reluctant to talk about it because it isn t legally proved yet. they have to go through, potentially years of evidence gathering. but the president has now, in the last week and secretary of state, and they came out with a formal statement a few days ago that these indeed are war crimes