look, this is actually how the bbc is funded. it s funded through the licence fee. it s paid for by the british public. and he responded. he responded first of alljust saying, oh, do you think this label is inaccurate? and then he came up with a suggestion himself. he said, maybe the accounts themselves should link to the sourcing of funding. i then pushed him on that and he gave me a much sort of longer email. he said, we are aiming for maximum transparency and accuracy. linking to ownership and source of funds probably makes sense. i do think media organisations should be self aware and not falsely claim the complete absence of bias. all organisations have bias, some obviously, much more than others. i should note that i follow bbc news on twitter because i think it is among the least biased. now, i think what you get an impression of there is that this is policy that is not defined yet. this is most certainly spitballing.
100%. i feel like, yeah, spitballing here. a man in this position in this industry and age comes out of something like this in the blue, he s trying to get ahead of this or something. yeah. very similar. of. i was like, oh, he s seen what happened around oh. oh, yeah. name that hormone. you have a lot of testosterone? yeah. what? that s what i was thinking when i was reading this, oh, just for dudes. what about us chicks that are just real manly in our vibes. what s the female hormone? i forget because i have less of it. estrogen? i got that too. i am a female. for now, anyway. yeah. yeah. we re suggestioning a transitioning people of 2027-2028. i have to move on. you got a joke?
could have a huge ripple effect in every election going forward. what was interesting in my view is that. so justices are really anxious about out of control legislatures. the rest are really anxious about out of control courts. explain this. you said this was good for one ride only, decision or dissent, talk to me about it. bush v. gore as you may recall, expressly on its own terms please do not cite this case for any time going forward, it is a one-time solution for a larry election problem. somehow when justice rehnquist wrote in a concurring opinion in that litigation, he wrote this thing sort of spitballing that maybe, you know, state supreme courts shouldn t be able to muck around in legislative determinations about elections. that got two votes. but now it is being held up as though it was somehow the holding of bush v. gore.
trump signing on to these court filings, john. there is an issue about trying to get a notary over zoom? sounds bizarre. help me. there was an issue about sort of could we change the way that we re phrasing this, could we get a notary over zoom so we re not essentially saying all of this stuff is true under punishment of perjury so they were sort of spitballing options and gives you an indication of how chaotic it was, how they wanted to prevent the former president from having legal exposure but continue to reiterate the claims of fraud that have been debunked. the more you learn the more bizarre and more corrupt it gets. sara murray, thanks for that. on election night join us, join cnn for our coverage that starts tuesday, election day at 4:00 p.m. eastern. learn what s happening. what s happening in your state, around the country. thanks for joining us on inside politics. ana cabrera picks up right now. hello, i m ana cabrera in
department to say there was fraud and let me do the rest. i can see why chairman thompson is interested in seeing what barr has to say. as a prosecutor, what information would you want from him? do you believe this canesation really is solely focused on this draft executive order? no, i think, joe, what i would be looking for was to figure out, was there a conspiracy? were these guys sort of spitballing and exploring what they thought were legal theories or working before, during, and after january 6th to try to maintain power even though they knew it was fraudulent? we now know that none of these claims of fraud had any evidence whatsoever. so what was going on there? was this, the charge i would be looking at was conspiracy to defraud the united states, and that is an agreement by two or more people to obstruct the lawful execution of the laws of the united states. and so if that s what s going on here, i think william barr can provide a piece of information that could be helpful