today to overturn the 1864 law that bans nearly all abortions. meanwhile, the u.s. supreme court heard arguments on whether a near-total abortion ban in idaho violates federal lab. a growing number of protests forming over the ongoing war in the middle east at campuses across the country. the movement has never been bigger than it is right now. new american weapons are finally on the way after president biden signed the nearly $100 billion foreign aid package. it will make america safer, it will make the world safer. in arizona, where a state grand jury indicted 11 republican officials wednesday for their unsuccessful ploy to a ward of the state electoral votes to mr. trent, despite his collection loss to president biden. liberal justices expressed concerns about a president having total immunity. i m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the oval office and you know the seat of criminal activity in this country. presidents have to make a
honored that recusal with regard to matters pending the department of justice, but i just want to comment on what may have been on anybody else s mind or offer any opinion about that because it s not for me to make those decisions. well, it is exactly, i think, why senator schatz asked a whole series of questions about the scope of recusal, because i am a lawyer. senator schatz may not be. he asked better questions than i did, but i also am having real difficulty understanding the scope of the recusal, its contours in definition, and i have an unresolved question about whether or not that s why the attorney general failed to appear before us today, is to avoid having to answer direct questions about the scope of his recusal. i do appreciate and respect your appointment of a highly talented special counsel, and there have been questions from both sides that imply strong support for his independence and his conduct, and i appreciate the care with which you are answering my questions,
obligation to account fully for my role in these events. did by obligation, you mean simply your legal obligation? or did you mean something bigger? well, both my legal obligation and my moral obligation. your moral obligation? i actually want to present an alternative theory. your family came here escaping the holocaust via uruguay. and your parents moved lucy and later you here where, frankly, you ve been an american success story. through dent of hard work and innovation, good idea, and knack to hire the right people and some luck, you ve built a considerable successful business. one that i know for a fact would make your parents proud. they came here because they knew
that it was here that they could have freedom that they had not enjoyed, security that they had not enjoyed, and opportunity that they had not enjoyed. and no doubt, on some level, you re grateful and it s created a sense of patriotism in you. is that fair to say? very fair. why then, sir, with your courage
giuliani. mr. giuliani said they thought ukraine should make a statement about fighting corruption and mr. yermac provided me a draft statement and i wanted to be assured that this statement would actually correct the perception that mr. giuliani had of ukraine and what they stand for now so that that would also be conveyed to president trump and solve this problem that i had observed with our may 23rd meeting with the president. the problem being that he s getting bad set of information. a statement like this could potentially correct that. so was mr. giuliani satisfied with this statement? no, he was not. why not? he believed it needed to say burisma and 2016 specifically or else it would not be credible, it would not mean anything. so in fact mr. giuliani wanted a statement that referenced burisma and 2016 elections explicitly. one that would benefit
essentially president trump. mr. ambassador, here s the text you sent to the ukrainian official august 13th. you said hey
ukraine had a statement about fighting corruption and mr. yermak would say burr mace in 2016. mr. yermak provided me a draft statement, and i wanted to be assured that this statement would actually correct the perception that mr. giuliani had of ukraine and what they stand for now so that that would also be conveyed to president trump and solve this problem that i d observed with our may 23rd meeting with the president. the problem that he s getting a bad set of information, statement like this could potentially correct that. so was mr. giuliani satisfied with this statement? no, he was not. why not? he believed that it needed to say burisma and 2016 specifically or else it would not be credible, it would not mean anything new. so, in fact, mr. jewel yagiu wanted it to state burisma and
one specifically for president trump. mr. ambassador, here s the text you sent to the ukrainian official on august 13th, let s put that up on the screen. you said hi, andre. good talking. f