The State Department. Putting iran on notice, is this trumps new red line . Hi, erin. Definitely being presented as a hard line on iran. Maybe somewhat blurry one at this point. But the white house is saying that it is dedicated to Holding Iran Accountable after this latest Missile Launch. And it is considering a whole range of options in a response and, yes, that does include a military one. A tough line on iran at the white house today. As to have day, we are officially putting iran on notice. Reporter National Security adviser Michael Flynn offering a cryptic warning after iran tested another Ballistic Missile sunday. The Obama Administration failed to respond adequately to tehrans malign actions including weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms. Reporter the new administration making its clear it believes the Missile Launch violated a u. N. Resolution. Flynns comments today follow
its missile program. But prior tests have gone down with
What weve been discussing w today, which involved in a regular channel, was a request that went against u. S. Policy that have have undermined the rule of law and our longstanding policy goals in ukraine, as in other countries in the postsoviet space. Those policies which were indeed championed by ambassador yovanovitch. You also testified on october 15th in the deposition about fundamental reforms necessary for ukraine to fight corruption and to transform the country. And you t cited the importance reforming certain institutions, notably was investigating President Trumps political opponents a part of those necessary reforms . Was it on that list of yours or indeed was it on any list . No, they werent. In fact, historically, is it not true that a major problem in the ukraine has been its misuse
of prosecutors, precisely to conduct investigation of political opponents. Thats a legacy i dare suggest from the soviet era when, as you stated in your testimony, prosecutors like the kgb were
long. and i think the defense is poking holes in that a little bit, saying, well, certainly he struggled with addiction and nobody disputes that. but the prosecution can t establish clearly that at the time he procured this weapon, which only had for about ten days these are 11 days that he was addicted. so how and that s really what it comes down to. and i m not sure the law is clear on this how close in time to the actual date of the gun purchase do prosecutors need to convince the jury that hunter biden was actually using drugs? they have to convince the jury until the jury s convinced i mean, that s it, briana. it s so open-ended and this is two weeks. why we could make used their good sense. i mean, what s the what s the measure they do i mean, i think prosecutors will seek to say that both before and after the possession of this firearm, he acknowledged to addiction, but even that s kinda vague. for the, reasonable doubt standard, which we know is very, very high, getting ove
the other thing that abbe lowell is trying to do is argue that he knowingly had to be deceptive on that forum. that keyword knowingly doing a lot of work for the defense. so when we talk about knowingly, willfully, these are things called mental intent if you want to be fancy at cocktail parties, say mens rea is the latin term, and prosecutors always have to establish what the mental state of the defendant was. now here, the law says knowingly possess so the question is, well, he thought this is the argument for the defense. he thought he was no longer addicted or he thought he wasn t using any more therefore, he was not knowingly possessing a firearm unlawfully. now that sort of strains logic a little bit, but this isn t about proving whether something did or didn t happen. it s about poking holes and the government s case. and it could be a successful way to do that. that s what defense attorneys and good defense attorneys do and abbe lowell has been doing this a very long ti
theory here~ perhaps civil rights laws, the theory here. if perhaps civil rights laws, the theory here- perhaps civil rights laws, the theo here. ., ., theory here. if we dig down into these accounts, theory here. if we dig down into these accounts, can theory here. if we dig down into these accounts, can you - theory here. if we dig down into these accounts, can you tell- theory here. if we dig down into these accounts, can you tell us| these accounts, can you tell us where you think the evidence is that we might see? because we know that the general recess committee in the house of representatives, the select committee looking into the riot, they they laid out a whole body of evidence the january 6 committee. they had no legal ramifications but they had suggestions for the department ofjustice. do you think the special counsel had to evidence that they could present? thea;r the special counsel had to evidence that they could present? they might. the had that they could pre