breaking the rules?- johnson was indeed guilty of breaking the rules? there is no evidence of breaking the rules? there is no evidence of it. breaking the rules? there is no evidence of it. it breaking the rules? there is no evidence of it. it is breaking the rules? there is no evidence of it. it is all- breaking the rules? there is no evidence of it. it is all about i breaking the rules? there is no i evidence of it. it is all about what people evidence of it. it is all about what people think. evidence of it. it is all about what people think- evidence of it. it is all about what people think. there are pages and ”aes people think. there are pages and -a . es of people think. there are pages and pages of evidence. people think. there are pages and pages of evidence. there - people think. there are pages and pages of evidence. there is - people think. there are pages and pages of evidence. there is not i people think. there are pages and pages of evidence. there is not a
not the rule of law, this is a - not the rule of law, this is a parliamentary committee who set their own parliamentary committee who set their own parameters within this. if you look their own parameters within this. if you look at their own parameters within this. if you look at the law. it is very important you look at the law. it is very important that we do have these committees, and they have a very difficult committees, and they have a very difficultjob to do. committees, and they have a very difficult job to do. there are somem difficult job to do. there are somem i difficult job to do. there are some. i would difficult job to do. there are some. iwould neverwant difficult job to do. there are some. i would never want to cast aspersions some. i would never want to cast aspersions i some. i would never want to cast aspersions. i think that the conclusions were wrong. yes, of course, conclusions were wrong. yes, of course, we conclusions were wrong. yes, of cour
what the committee has found, because how could they find anything else? ., ., ~ because how could they find anything else? ., ., 4 ., ., because how could they find anything else? ., ., ~ . . , else? looking at what the committee has said about else? looking at what the committee has said about the else? looking at what the committee has said about the report, else? looking at what the committee has said about the report, they - else? looking at what the committee has said about the report, they say . has said about the report, they say johnson s contempt has no precedent, there is no precedent for a prime minister to have deliberately misled the house of commons. to your mind, how significant is this? putting aside the drama, the political theatre, as a moment in an institutional democracy, how significant is this? i institutional democracy, how significant is this? institutional democracy, how significant is this? i think it is a moment of significant is this? i think it i
remained have stayed on, could have remained in parliament, and then for the people who voted them in. why did he not do that? it people who voted them in. .. why did he not do that? he not do that? if he thought he was auoin to he not do that? if he thought he was going to get he not do that? if he thought he was going to get a he not do that? if he thought he was going to get a fair he not do that? if he thought he was going to get a fair hearing, - he not do that? if he thought he was going to get a fair hearing, he - going to get a fair hearing, he would going to get a fair hearing, he would have done that. it was clear when would have done that. it was clear when the would have done that. it was clear when the draft of the report was sent to when the draft of the report was sent to him that he was not going to -et sent to him that he was not going to get that sent to him that he was not going to get that. now, as we have all seen the report, get that. now, as we