with the prime minister s statement on wednesday. while he opposes a pro palestinian rally being held on armistice day, he has ultimately backed the right to peaceful protest . and while ms braverman does have the tools and authority to remove the police commissioner, she doesn t have free reign to involve herself in daily policing decisions. so where does this leave the commissioner, mark rowley? to exit stage left at this point no matter how honourable, that might be the right thing to do would not be helpful for me policing perspective, and the last thing this weekend needs is something else that s not helpful. it needs a little bit of common sense and continuity and stability, and i suspect he would ve thought that him leaving would not provide that. our panel to discuss all this tonight, bryan lanza one political strategist who ran the donald trump communications department, and running but paul wall. but let s start with bryan. but there has been a lot of criticism
To Dateline London. President trumps travel ban ruled out by a court mr trump responds with see you in court. Is he now the litigant in chief . And russian intervention in libya another tactical victory for putin . My guests today are. Abdel bari atwan, who is a writer and broadcaster on arab affairs, Stephanie Baker of bloomberg news, Yasmin Alibhai brown, the author and commentator, and vincent magombe, who is an african commentator. President trumps own nominee to the Us Supreme Court was said to have criticised the president over mr trumps attitude to judges trump talked of so called judges. It follows the courts decision to rule out the president s travel ban on people from mostly muslim countries, and further bitterness between the president and some in congress. Are these teething troubles or a sign of how the next four years are likely to be in Washington With the president attacking the other pillars of the Us Constitution . Where do you think we are now . Well, i think, what
It was not in any record i july 25th call. And this is consistent with the reported comments from received. But when you did see. Ambassadors volker and taylor. After the zelensky meeting, i yes, i saw that in september, also met with zelenskys senior correct. So on this continuum, the aide, andre yermak. Beginning of the continuum begins on may 23rd when the president instructs you to talk I Dont Recall the specifics of our conversation, but i believe the issue of investigations was to rudy . Correct. And you understood that as a probably a part of that agenda direction by the president that you needed to satisfy the or meeting. Concerns that Rudy Giuliani would express to you about what also, on july 26th, shortly the president wanted in ukraine . After our kiev meetings, i spoke not to me. By phone with President Trump. To the entire group, volker, perry and myself, correct. The white house, which has now, in your opening finally, finally shared certain statement you confirmed that
going to do them, or it, and that president zelensky will do anything you ask him to do. is that an accurate recitation of what happened there? it could have been words to that effect. i don t remember my exact response. but you don t have any reason to dispute mr. holmes recollection, correct? i won t dispute it, but again, i don t recall. after you hung up with the president, mr. holmes testified about a conversation that you and he had, where he says that you told mr. holmes that the president does not care about ukraine, but the president used the more colorful language, including a four-letter word that you just referenced to, you ve just referenced. do you recall saying that to mr. holmes? again, i don t recall any exact words, but clearly the president beginning on may 23rd, when we met with him in the oval office, was not a big fan.
the united states europe and asia posted gains on the news. earlier i asked the german economic institute who would have to back down first for this dispute it . well with difficulty. i think to donald trump and his and administration know try to maneuver themselves into a negotiation position with china on this topic go for an intellectual property property rights and threatening terrorists is one of the options to negotiate this and might this have just been the right strategy here i mean because there haven t been other countries that have been lamenting china s trade practices and the theft of intellectual property so is it could this be the right way to go this strong and aggressive position well i think diplomacy would be of use the better because if you threaten something and nothing happens you have to fulfill your threat in order