and temperatures around sunshine and temperatures around five to 8 degrees. it might be a degree also up on the values today in northern england but because you have the cloud, it could feel pretty chilly. as we go into thursday, once again more cloud coming in and because of a subtle change in wind direction in myjust drive the cloud a little bit further south as we go through the day on thursday. potentially, not as much sunshine around i want to gain those temperatures just below where they should be for the time of year. friday into the start of the weekend, we keep the cold weather. on the whole, a lot of dry weather but the winds turn to a northerly and could see some snow showers at lower levels into scotland over the weekend and the weather story could get interesting by the middle of next week with more snow potentially across the country. and that's bbc news at ten.

the woman at the heart of the post office scandal says she'll hand in her cbe but what's the plan for victims? on newsnight tonight, we hear from several former sub—postmasters of south asian heritage who believe discrimination at the hands of the post office compounded their suffering. with my parents, because their english is very broken, people would get quite abrupt with them. so you're saying racism, in your mind, was at play? certainly with my parents.

an mp who was also a sub—postmasterjoins us — does he see a plan forjustice for all the victims? also tonight, newsnight has seen nhs documents that say a student's life could have been saved had doctors at a brighton hospital acted sooner, yet an inquest concluded only yesterday there was nothing to trigger further investigation. we'll have an exclusive report. in washington, donald trump has been arguing that he should be exempt from prosecution. ifeel that, as a president, you have to have immunity, very simple. and if you don't, as an example, if this case were lost on immunity and i did nothing wrong, absolutely nothing wrong. we'll explain what this latest court appearance means. and the pope, already critical of surrogacy, calls for it to be outlawed, likening it to trafficking. we'll be joined by a woman who has brought three surrogate babies into the world,

and to anne atkins, who thinks the pope has a point. good evening. today, perhaps spurred on by rishi sunak�*s stated aim of investigating her honour, paula vennells, the former ceo of the post office, announced she is handing back her cbe, and her insignia will therefore have to be returned to the king. however, the former anglican priest had one high level supporter in her own diocese, as the bishop of st albans let it be known that ms vennells should be judged by all the facts, not a tv drama. well, tonight newsnight brings more to light. we hear from people who believe that racism played a part in the way they were treated. we'll hearfrom sima in a moment but first, nick, this unfolding story is still dominating politics. how should we expect this to unfold tomorrow? all eyes tomorrow on whether the government can do this move we were talking about last night, to introduce legislation that would

effectively overturn the 900 or so post office horizon related prosecutions put we know the postal affairs minister kevin hollinrake is keen on this, and justice secretary alex chalk, he was asked about this bike nadhim zahawi, the former chancellor who has a cameo role in the itv drama and he said, can we have a simple built all 800 convictions immediately? alex chalk said, you have with your position put your finger on this appalling injustice, i'm giving active consideration to the idea and i hope to make a further announcement shortly. but as i said last night, it is not straightforward, there are issues around the independence of the judiciary interfering issues around the independence of thejudiciary interfering in issues around the independence of the judiciary interfering in the courts so all eyes tomorrow, can the government make an announcement on this or are we in the sort of more work to be done stage?— this or are we in the sort of more work to be done stage? thank you and we will hear — work to be done stage? thank you and we will hear from _ work to be done stage? thank you and we will hear from you _ work to be done stage? thank you and we will hear from you later _ work to be done stage? thank you and we will hear from you later as - work to be done stage? thank you and we will hear from you later as well. . for some of those being involved, the distress of being investigated was exascerbated by what they say was discriminatory treatment.

sima kotecha has been speaking to them, and digging into some of the offensive language used by the post office in previous years. the post office on your high street or in your village. for those who ran one, it was a smart business move. often a stable income, a place people needed for help with their daily lives. how much would you like to withdraw today? for those coming from abroad, it meant the chance to work hard and make a success here in britain. many people of black and ethnic minority heritage ran post offices during the time of the wrongful prosecutions. 2012 figures show how diverse the sub—postmaster population was. there were 50 people of bangladeshi heritage. more than 1,500 were indian. more than 400 were pakistani. nine were of black african heritage, and more than 3,200 were white british. last year the post office apologised

after it revealed it used racist terms to describe postmasters wrongly investigated as part of the horizon it scandal. a document showed they used terms like chinese, japanese types, dark skinned european types and negroid types. the post office said the language and classifications used in the historical document is completely abhorrent and condemned by today's post office. now several people of south asian heritage who worked in post offices at the time have contacted newsnight to say they feel race played a part in the way people were treated. one man of indian background said he was told by a member of post office staff in 2011, "all the indians are doing it, they have relatives and so they take the money and send it to them abroad." another said about the post office staff he dealt with, "it felt like they thought

you were a foreigner and you'd robbed them." and a woman of asian origin said, "it was like we were dumb because english wasn't our first language, that we struggled to make sense of basic accounting." balwinder gill says he was wrongly accused of stealing 108,000 from the post office in 200a. he had a mental breakdown afterwards and was sectioned three times. then in 2009, his mum was found guilty of stealing 57,000 from the same oxford branch. her conviction was eventually overturned. i think with my parents, because their english is very broken, people would get quite abrupt with them. they weren't really empathetic towards their language, yet they were very pleased with their money and assets and what value they could see that they could take from them. but they weren't valuing them as people. i felt that from my own experience and having spoken to them at length about this. are you saying racism in your mind was at play?

yes, certainly with my parents, definitely. vipin patel was wrongly accused of fraud in 2009 and said he felt he was spoken to differently because of his race. there were times up and down when it did feel like there is no doubt about it, but i wouldn't... it's very difficult when you are talking to people on the phone because you don't see them in a picture or something. you don't know what their body language is or attitude is, but it's the voice that makes you feel, the tone of the voice makes you feel whether this person is talking down to you or being helpful or something like that. however, the picture isn't clear. in 2022, the post office released a summary of a76 people who had been convicted. of the 316 who had provided their ethnicity, 123 were of black, asian and minority ethnic background. that's almost a0%. how many postmasters are from a minority background is not exactly known.

a recent survey put it at more than 43%, but the data isn't comprehensive. from having spoken to some of these people in a lot of detail, there's a sense that the alleged racism wasn't overt, but that certain stereotypes were in play, that ethnic groups were being labelled as being money grabbing or liars. and their testimony now raises further questions about the morals and values within the post office during this time. newsnight can't prove racism played a part here. and of course, there are hundreds of white people who were wrongly accused, too. but from the anecdotal evidence we've been able to gather, it's clear there's a strong feeling among some that they could have been discriminated against when so many people were being falsely accused. the post office said, "we share fully the aims

of the public inquiry to get to the truth of what went wrong in the past and establish accountability. it's for the inquiry to reach its own independent conclusions after consideration of all the evidence on the issues that it is examining. we are doing all we can to put right the wrongs of the past, including providing full and fair compensation for those affected." we arejoined by duncan baker mp and a former sub—postmaster from 2014 to 2019 and marion fellows mp, chair of the post offices all party parliamentary group, a group of mps who have been campaigning on this issue for around five years. and nick watt is also here. firstly, before we talk about your own personal experience, were you glad to hear today that paula vennells has decided to return her cbe? yes. has decided to return her cbe? yes, ever since the _ has decided to return her cbe? yes, ever since the weekend _ has decided to return her cbe? yes, ever since the weekend i _ has decided to return her cbe? ye: ever since the weekend i have been calling for this and had made my thoughts very node to the prime minister as well. she has done the right thing and it is the tip of the iceberg clearly in this scandal

overall but she has brought the post office into disrepute and of course the honours system is also was the right thing to do. in the honours system is also was the right thing to do.— right thing to do. in your own circumstance, _ right thing to do. in your own circumstance, you _ right thing to do. in your own circumstance, you were - right thing to do. in your own circumstance, you were the l circumstance, you were the accountant in the family business and you were prosecuted, and it was that not that good not that much money, £5,000, but that's the tip of the story because event made you think, what about these other people? think, what about these other --eole? �* , think, what about these other --eole? �*, ., , think, what about these other n-eole? �*, w, ., , think, what about these other --eole? �*, ., , ., people? it's extraordinary. i was a finance director _ people? it's extraordinary. i was a finance director of _ people? it's extraordinary. i was a finance director of a _ people? it's extraordinary. i was a finance director of a stepfamily's l finance director of a stepfamily's business and i was actually postmaster of the year, sorry, running the post of that won post office of the year in 2015. to hear of what has happened, and that you could have been embroiled in this situation, and of course what has happened to thousands of innocent people, it makes it very real. ianthem people, it makes it very real. when ou met people, it makes it very real. when you met paula _ people, it makes it very real. when you met paula vennells, _ people, it makes it very real. when you met paula vennells, did - people, it makes it very real. when you met paula vennells, did you i you met paula vennells, did you get any sense of empathetic views or anything concerning her? h0. any sense of empathetic views or anything concerning her? no, the iron was anything concerning her? no, the irony was that _ anything concerning her? no, the irony was that she _ anything concerning her? no, the irony was that she treated - anything concerning her? no, the irony was that she treated the - irony was that she treated the postmasters that i was in the same ilk as at a of the pin—ups of the

post office opened this wanted to be a corporate business so if you were running a post office like we were, in a supermarket, as part of a larger business, that was the vision she was very corporate in her focus. and of course you have seen that in the documentation, the —— in the documentary, the little people. and documentary, the little people. and ou documentary, the little people. and you became — documentary, the little people. and you became involved in this because of your constituents, some of the so—called little people. of your constituents, some of the so-called little people. absolutely, sur - assed so-called little people. absolutely, surpassed matters _ so-called little people. absolutely, surpassed matters came _ so-called little people. absolutely, surpassed matters came to - so-called little people. absolutely, surpassed matters came to me - so-called little people. absolutely, l surpassed matters came to me early on in _ surpassed matters came to me early on in 2015— surpassed matters came to me early on in 2015 -- — surpassed matters came to me early on in 2015 —— sub—postmaster point out they— on in 2015 —— sub—postmaster point out they had — on in 2015 —— sub—postmaster point out they had real doubts and were really _ out they had real doubts and were really concerned about what was happening and how the post office was moving forward and how they could _ was moving forward and how they could not— was moving forward and how they could not make a living as a sub—postmaster in those days. we could not make a living as a sub-postmaster in those days. we are in a situation — sub-postmaster in those days. we are in a situation now— sub-postmaster in those days. we are in a situation now where, _ sub-postmaster in those days. we are in a situation now where, if— sub-postmaster in those days. we are in a situation now where, if there - in a situation now where, if there going to be emergency legislation, something done, but it's not simply about the people who are prosecuted? absolutely not because there are many _ absolutely not because there are many sub — absolutely not because there are many sub postmasters, and i know some, _ many sub postmasters, and i know some. who — many sub postmasters, and i know some, who gave money to the post office _ some, who gave money to the post

office and _ some, who gave money to the post office and who have to ask, where did that _ office and who have to ask, where did that go?— office and who have to ask, where did that no? ., ., ., , did that go? how do you mean they ave did that go? how do you mean they gave money? _ did that go? how do you mean they gave money? they _ did that go? how do you mean they gave money? they gave _ did that go? how do you mean they gave money? they gave money - did that go? how do you mean they - gave money? they gave money because there were balances _ gave money? they gave money because there were balances that _ gave money? they gave money because there were balances that were not - there were balances that were not correct _ there were balances that were not correct so — there were balances that were not correct so they paid the post office the difference. they were not prosecuted, but when they walked away from the post office, because many _ away from the post office, because many of _ away from the post office, because many of them did because they had such an _ many of them did because they had such an awful time, all the money, all the _ such an awful time, all the money, all the documentation went back to post office limited. they couldn't really _ post office limited. they couldn't really prove however, they could go for the _ really prove however, they could go for the historic shortfall scheme and i_ for the historic shortfall scheme and i would appeal to sub postmaster to do that _ and i would appeal to sub postmaster to do that. you and i would appeal to sub postmaster to do that. ., ~ ., , , to do that. you think there are sub postmasters _ to do that. you think there are sub postmasters and _ to do that. you think there are sub postmasters and mistresses still. to do that. you think there are sub i postmasters and mistresses still out there, we hear them come forward, but a lot don't even understand that they could be involved?— they could be involved? absolutely and that is a _ they could be involved? absolutely and that is a real _ they could be involved? absolutely and that is a real issue. _ they could be involved? absolutely and that is a real issue. i _ they could be involved? absolutely and that is a real issue. i think- and that is a real issue. i think also, — and that is a real issue. i think also, the — and that is a real issue. i think also, the fact that this money was paid back, — also, the fact that this money was paid back, the post office kept it and it— paid back, the post office kept it and it went into their profits. and of course — and it went into their profits. and of course executives were getting bonuses — of course executives were getting bonuses based on the profits. and we are talkin: bonuses based on the profits. and we are talking about _ bonuses based on the profits. and we are talking about millions _ bonuses based on the profits. and we

are talking about millions and - are talking about millions and millions of pounds where people were falsely accused and they paid up because that was part of the contract and how many millions of pounds the post office has made? their accounts have been wrong for years. their accounts have been wrong for ears, ., ., ., , years. tomorrow there will be legislation _ years. tomorrow there will be legislation but _ years. tomorrow there will be legislation but of— years. tomorrow there will be legislation but of course - years. tomorrow there will be legislation but of course a - legislation but of course a completely different judicial system in scotland to england and wales and yet the minister in westminster talked about wanting a uk wide solution? �* , �* talked about wanting a uk wide solution? �* , ~ ., ~ solution? because alex chalk, the lord chancellor, _ solution? because alex chalk, the lord chancellor, is _ solution? because alex chalk, the lord chancellor, is a _ solution? because alex chalk, the lord chancellor, is a lord - lord chancellor, is a lord chancellor— lord chancellor, is a lord chancellor for _ lord chancellor, is a lord chancellor for england i lord chancellor, is a lordl chancellor for england and lord chancellor, is a lord - chancellor for england and wales lord chancellor, is a lord _ chancellor for england and wales but there talking, — chancellor for england and wales but there talking, kevin _ chancellor for england and wales but there talking, kevin hollinrake, - there talking, kevin hollinrake, saying — there talking, kevin hollinrake, saying he — there talking, kevin hollinrake, saying he wants _ there talking, kevin hollinrake, saying he wants this _ there talking, kevin hollinrake, saying he wants this legislation| there talking, kevin hollinrake, . saying he wants this legislation to be saying he wants this legislation to he uk _ saying he wants this legislation to he uk wide — saying he wants this legislation to he uk wide in— saying he wants this legislation to be uk wide. in the _ saying he wants this legislation to be uk wide. in the scottish - be uk wide. in the scottish parliament_ be uk wide. in the scottish parliament today, - be uk wide. in the scottish parliament today, angela i be uk wide. in the scottish - parliament today, angela constance, cabinet _ parliament today, angela constance, cabinet secretary _ parliament today, angela constance, cabinet secretary for _ parliament today, angela constance, cabinet secretary forjustice - parliament today, angela constance, cabinet secretary forjustice and - cabinet secretary forjustice and home _ cabinet secretary forjustice and home affairs. _ cabinet secretary forjustice and home affairs, talked _ cabinet secretary forjustice and home affairs, talked about - cabinet secretary forjustice and home affairs, talked about howl cabinet secretary forjustice and - home affairs, talked about how they would _ home affairs, talked about how they would like _ home affairs, talked about how they would like a — home affairs, talked about how they would like a pardon _ home affairs, talked about how they would like a pardon scheme - home affairs, talked about how they would like a pardon scheme but - home affairs, talked about how theyj would like a pardon scheme but they would _ would like a pardon scheme but they would like _ would like a pardon scheme but they would like it— would like a pardon scheme but they would like it to _ would like a pardon scheme but they would like it to have _ would like a pardon scheme but they would like it to have the _ would like a pardon scheme but they would like it to have the effect - would like a pardon scheme but they would like it to have the effect of. would like it to have the effect of overturning — would like it to have the effect of overturning convictions _ would like it to have the effect of overturning convictions because. overturning convictions because that's— overturning convictions because that's the — overturning convictions because that's the only— overturning convictions because that's the only way _ overturning convictions because that's the only way you - overturning convictions because that's the only way you can - overturning convictions because that's the only way you can sortj overturning convictions because . that's the only way you can sort of unlock— that's the only way you can sort of unlock the — that's the only way you can sort of unlock the compensation - that's the only way you can sort of unlock the compensation scheme. that's the only way you can sort of l unlock the compensation scheme. a complex— unlock the compensation scheme. a complex of— unlock the compensation scheme. a complex of doing _ unlock the compensation scheme. a complex of doing something - unlock the compensation scheme. a complex of doing something uk- unlock the compensation scheme. ai complex of doing something uk wide but complexities— complex of doing something uk wide but complexities as _ complex of doing something uk wide but complexities as i _ complex of doing something uk wide but complexities as i said _ complex of doing something uk wide but complexities as i said earlier- but complexities as i said earlier about— but complexities as i said earlier about how— but complexities as i said earlier about how you _ but complexities as i said earlier about how you actually- but complexities as i said earlier about how you actually do - but complexities as i said earlierj about how you actually do this in but complexities as i said earlier. about how you actually do this in a way that— about how you actually do this in a

way that the — about how you actually do this in a way that the judiciary— about how you actually do this in a way that the judiciary are - way that the judiciary are comfortable _ way that the judiciary are comfortable with - way that the judiciary are comfortable with and - way that the judiciary are | comfortable with and one way that the judiciary are - comfortable with and one person way that the judiciary are _ comfortable with and one person at the heart _ comfortable with and one person at the heart of— comfortable with and one person at the heart of all _ comfortable with and one person at the heart of all this _ comfortable with and one person at the heart of all this has— comfortable with and one person at the heart of all this has been- the heart of all this has been telling — the heart of all this has been telling me _ the heart of all this has been telling me this evening - the heart of all this has been telling me this evening thatl the heart of all this has been- telling me this evening that clearly there _ telling me this evening that clearly there was— telling me this evening that clearly there was a — telling me this evening that clearly there was a problem _ telling me this evening that clearly there was a problem with the - telling me this evening that clearly there was a problem with the legal system, _ there was a problem with the legal system. clearly _ there was a problem with the legal system. clearly a _ there was a problem with the legal system, clearly a problem - there was a problem with the legal system, clearly a problem in - there was a problem with the legal system, clearly a problem in the l system, clearly a problem in the courts— system, clearly a problem in the courts opened _ system, clearly a problem in the courts opened they _ system, clearly a problem in the courts opened they need - system, clearly a problem in the courts opened they need to - system, clearly a problem in the courts opened they need to be . system, clearly a problem in the . courts opened they need to be part of the _ courts opened they need to be part of the solution _ courts opened they need to be part of the solution and _ courts opened they need to be part of the solution and the _ courts opened they need to be partj of the solution and the government can't say, _ of the solution and the government can't say, he — of the solution and the government can't say, he is— of the solution and the government can't say, he is our— of the solution and the government can't say, he is our idea, _ of the solution and the government can't say, he is our idea, sign- of the solution and the government can't say, he is our idea, sign up. can't say, he is our idea, sign up under— can't say, he is our idea, sign up under the — can't say, he is our idea, sign up under the project _ can't say, he is our idea, sign up under the project a _ can't say, he is our idea, sign up under the project a fiscal- can't say, he is our idea, sign up under the project a fiscal decide | can't say, he is our idea, sign up. under the project a fiscal decide in scotland _ under the project a fiscal decide in scotland it— under the project a fiscal decide in scotland it is— under the project a fiscal decide in scotland it is a _ under the project a fiscal decide in scotland it is a kate _ under the project a fiscal decide in scotland it is a kate to _ under the project a fiscal decide in scotland it is a kate to answer- under the project a fiscal decide in. scotland it is a kate to answer pond and it _ scotland it is a kate to answer pond and it was _ scotland it is a kate to answer pond and it was good _ scotland it is a kate to answer pond and it was good based _ scotland it is a kate to answer pond and it was good based on— scotland it is a kate to answer pond and it was good based on the - and it was good based on the evidence _ and it was good based on the evidence supplied _ and it was good based on the evidence supplied by- and it was good based on the evidence supplied by the - and it was good based on thel evidence supplied by the post and it was good based on the - evidence supplied by the post office and fujitsu — evidence supplied by the post office and fujitsu it— evidence supplied by the post office and fujitsu. [it is _ evidence supplied by the post office and fu'itsu. , ., and fujitsu. it is almost inconceivable _ and fujitsu. it is almost inconceivable that - and fujitsu. it is almost inconceivable that this i and fujitsu. it is almost - inconceivable that this could have gone _ inconceivable that this could have gone on _ inconceivable that this could have gone on so — inconceivable that this could have gone on so long. but there was not a proper— gone on so long. but there was not a proper governance and oversight. when _ proper governance and oversight. when the — proper governance and oversight. when the first minister of scotland calls for mass exoneration, is that actually a good president? the problem is, that can be used in future cases. it problem is, that can be used in future cases.— problem is, that can be used in future cases. it has already been done in terms _ future cases. it has already been done in terms of _ future cases. it has already been done in terms of some _ future cases. it has already been done in terms of some of the - future cases. it has already been. done in terms of some of the 555, general— done in terms of some of the 555, general litigation in 2021 so we have _ general litigation in 2021 so we have to — general litigation in 2021 so we have to do things, we have to get this sorted — have to do things, we have to get this sorted. but we also have to be very careful — this sorted. but we also have to be very careful that it's notjust reactive because kneejerk

legislation, as we know from previous— legislation, as we know from previous examples, does not always work _ previous examples, does not always work. ~ ., ., previous examples, does not always work. ~ . ., ., ., previous examples, does not always work. . ., ., ., ., work. what are you going to do in terms of legislation? _ work. what are you going to do in terms of legislation? what - work. what are you going to do in terms of legislation? what you i work. what are you going to do in i terms of legislation? what you think the best way forward is? as nick said, and if you overturn a conviction, at the moment you don't get compensation. what about the for ill—health and for children left without parents or their mental health issues? we without parents or their mental health issues?— without parents or their mental health issues? ~ , ., , health issues? we will never be able to sort that — health issues? we will never be able to sort that issue _ health issues? we will never be able to sort that issue out. _ health issues? we will never be able to sort that issue out. that - health issues? we will never be able to sort that issue out. that is - health issues? we will never be able to sort that issue out. that is one i to sort that issue out. that is one of the fundamental problem the mental health and anxiety are people that have lost absolutely everything, and even worse, lost partners in this, i will never be made up at all. and of course we know that has happened in so many cases so there is a real issue to deal with. obviously total exoneration, that situation needs to be dealt with, and then the compensation as we discussed and it's difficult i've said in parliament repeatedly, six times i've said it, fujitsu, when are we going to tackle them as when can they be mate to compensate people?

the inquiry being carried out, so when _ the inquiry being carried out, so when williams, they haven't even looked _ when williams, they haven't even looked yet — when williams, they haven't even looked yet at governance issues within— looked yet at governance issues within the post office. there as well governance issues going all the way back— well governance issues going all the way back to when post offices and royal— way back to when post offices and royal mail were privatised. because the government ministers are able to say, you _ the government ministers are able to say, you know, they run day—to—day affairs. _ say, you know, they run day—to—day affairs. was — say, you know, they run day—to—day affairs, was told by a previous post office _ affairs, was told by a previous post office minister, everything is fine, post office — office minister, everything is fine, post office are making a profit. and that “ust is post office are making a profit. fific thatjust is appalling. what post office are making a profit. fific that just is appalling. what about thatjust is appalling. what about the argument that there is plenty of legislation here, we don't need any more, and certainly not kneejerk legislation? more, and certainly not knee'erk regisution?�* more, and certainly not knee'erk leaislation? , , ., ., , legislation? this comes down to this bod here, legislation? this comes down to this body here. the _ legislation? this comes down to this body here, the horizon _ legislation? this comes down to this body here, the horizon conversation| body here, the horizon conversation advisory— body here, the horizon conversation advisory board, _ body here, the horizon conversation advisory board, and _ body here, the horizon conversation advisory board, and they _ body here, the horizon conversation i advisory board, and they recommended in december— advisory board, and they recommended in december in— advisory board, and they recommended in december in a— advisory board, and they recommended in december in a letter— advisory board, and they recommended in december in a letter to _ advisory board, and they recommended in december in a letter to the _ in december in a letter to the government— in december in a letter to the government that _ in december in a letter to the government that you - in december in a letter to the government that you need i in december in a letter to the government that you need to| in december in a letter to the i government that you need to have this simple — government that you need to have this simple overturning _ government that you need to have this simple overturning of- government that you need to have this simple overturning of the i this simple overturning of the convictions _ this simple overturning of the convictions because _ this simple overturning of the convictions because they i this simple overturning of the convictions because they sayl this simple overturning of thel convictions because they say it this simple overturning of the i convictions because they say it is so complicated _ convictions because they say it is so complicated and _ convictions because they say it is so complicated and so _ convictions because they say it is so complicated and so complex, | convictions because they say it is i so complicated and so complex, that simply— so complicated and so complex, that simply has _ so complicated and so complex, that simply has to — so complicated and so complex, that simply has to be _ so complicated and so complex, that simply has to be done _ so complicated and so complex, that simply has to be done and _ so complicated and so complex, that simply has to be done and they- so complicated and so complex, that| simply has to be done and they could only see _ simply has to be done and they could only see one — simply has to be done and they could only see one way— simply has to be done and they could only see one way of— simply has to be done and they could only see one way of doing _ simply has to be done and they could only see one way of doing it - simply has to be done and they could only see one way of doing it which i only see one way of doing it which is through— only see one way of doing it which is through this _ only see one way of doing it which is through this very— only see one way of doing it which is through this very simple - only see one way of doing it which is through this very simple bill. it| is through this very simple bill. it

does _ is through this very simple bill. it does have — is through this very simple bill. it does have two— is through this very simple bill. it does have two legal— is through this very simple bill. it does have two legal experts, i does have two legal experts, academics, _ does have two legal experts, academics, on _ does have two legal experts, academics, on the _ does have two legal experts, academics, on the panel, i does have two legal experts, | academics, on the panel, and does have two legal experts, i academics, on the panel, and also kevin _ academics, on the panel, and also kevinjones. — academics, on the panel, and also kevinjones. the _ academics, on the panel, and also kevinjones, the labour— academics, on the panel, and also kevinjones, the labour mp, - academics, on the panel, and also kevinjones, the labour mp, the. kevinjones, the labour mp, the former— kevinjones, the labour mp, the former conservative _ kevinjones, the labour mp, the former conservative mp, - kevinjones, the labour mp, the former conservative mp, they. kevinjones, the labour mp, the. former conservative mp, they have been _ former conservative mp, they have been campaigning _ former conservative mp, they have been campaigning on— former conservative mp, they have been campaigning on this, - former conservative mp, they have been campaigning on this, as- former conservative mp, they have been campaigning on this, as have| been campaigning on this, as have duncan _ been campaigning on this, as have duncan and — been campaigning on this, as have duncan and marion _ been campaigning on this, as have duncan and marion and _ been campaigning on this, as have duncan and marion and i _ been campaigning on this, as have duncan and marion and i think- been campaigning on this, as have| duncan and marion and i think their meeting _ duncan and marion and i think their meeting tomorrow, _ duncan and marion and i think their meeting tomorrow, there _ duncan and marion and i think their meeting tomorrow, there is - duncan and marion and i think their meeting tomorrow, there is a - duncan and marion and i think their. meeting tomorrow, there is a certain element _ meeting tomorrow, there is a certain element of— meeting tomorrow, there is a certain element of frustration _ meeting tomorrow, there is a certain element of frustration that _ meeting tomorrow, there is a certain element of frustration that the - element of frustration that the government— element of frustration that the government is— element of frustration that the government is suddenly - element of frustration that the i government is suddenly coming to this after— government is suddenly coming to this after the — government is suddenly coming to this after the itv _ government is suddenly coming to this after the itv drama, - government is suddenly coming to this after the itv drama, they've . this after the itv drama, they've had this— this after the itv drama, they've had this letter— this after the itv drama, they've had this letter since _ this after the itv drama, they've i had this letter since mid—december and are _ had this letter since mid—december and are they— had this letter since mid—december and are they going _ had this letter since mid—december and are they going to _ had this letter since mid—december and are they going to bungle - had this letter since mid—december and are they going to bungle it i had this letter since mid—december and are they going to bungle it at l and are they going to bungle it at the last— and are they going to bungle it at the last hurdle? _ do you think in terms of the scale of miscarriage ofjustice that this has to be up there as one of the biggest scandals?— has to be up there as one of the biggest scandals? without any doubt and the public _ biggest scandals? without any doubt and the public also _ biggest scandals? without any doubt and the public also feel— biggest scandals? without any doubt and the public also feel that. - and the public also feel that. this is why we are in the situation because we have been campaigning for many years. marion before me. i came to parliament in 2019. but what the itv drama has done is to shine a light on a disgraceful situation that happened in british history, a

david and goliath problem where david and goliath problem where david has been the winner and quite rightly so. and now we need to get to the situation where those thousands of innocent people have had their lives trashed and they get the proper recompense they deserve. what to expect from the inquiry? i expect great things, it has already uncovered — expect great things, it has already uncovered a huge amount of things. and so— uncovered a huge amount of things. and so when it is doing a sterling 'ob, and so when it is doing a sterling job, i_ and so when it is doing a sterling job, i met — and so when it is doing a sterling job, i met him before the inquiry was statutory and just by talking to him i_ was statutory and just by talking to him i knew — was statutory and just by talking to him i knew that he was listening and taking _ him i knew that he was listening and taking on— him i knew that he was listening and taking on board what was happening. it taking on board what was happening. it has _ taking on board what was happening. it has been _ taking on board what was happening. it has been stopped many times because — it has been stopped many times because evidence has not appeared. many— because evidence has not appeared. many campaigners have actually taken the post _ many campaigners have actually taken the post office to task because of them _ the post office to task because of them not — the post office to task because of them not producing enough documentation so we've got more to look forward to. and when it gets to governance — look forward to. and when it gets to governance that is when things change — governance that is when things change again. governance that is when things change again-— governance that is when things change again. thank you all very much.

a student's life could have been saved had doctors at a brighton hospital acted sooner — that's according to nhs documents leaked to bbc newsnight. 21—year—old melissa zoglie went to a&e last year with acute abdominal pain, but doctors didn't realise her stomach was twisted — a life—threatening situation — and she was sent home. at an inquest this week, the coroner concluded that there was no clinical indication for further investigations but highlighted inconsistencies in some of the evidence. last month, newsnight heard from four whistleblowers who said patients died unnecessarily and others were effectively maimed by surgeons at university hospitals sussex. the trust says patient data doesn't support claims of unnecessary deaths or maiming. joe pike has this report. sometimes i just feel like screaming for help. sometimes i'll be sleeping and i wake up panicking. no family should go through this. melissa zoglie's parents are struggling.

their daughter was just 21 when last april she was admitted to hospital with abdominal pain. her stomach was twisted, rare in a patient of her age. but doctors at royal sussex county hospital didn't realise. they ordered a chest x—ray, but not a ct scan to see her internal organs. she was sent home with medication typically used to treat stomach ulcers. the next day, melissa collapsed at home, she was taken by ambulance back to hospital. she told her mother she could not feel her legs. soon after, melissa had a heart attack. cpr was administered, but when she was taken for emergency surgery, doctors discovered her stomach was dead, and there was nothing they could do. this week, melissa zoglie's family attended the inquest into her death. they were forced to represent themselves because they couldn't afford a lawyer. the trust and a local gp

each had a barrister. the coroner told the court it was not herjob to apportion blame. she found that the evidence was that there was no clinical indication for further investigations at the time melissa was first admitted to hospital. the coroner, joanne andrews, concluded that melissa zoglie died from natural causes, but she did highlight inconsistencies between the recollections of doctors and the recollections of the family, and also highlighted discrepancies in some of the evidence from the trust. and leaked internal documents obtained by bbc neswnight suggest the trust was aware opportunities were missed. a departmental review said a learning point was that the patient should have been reviewed and examined by general surgery prior to discharge. in the trust's patient safety incident investigation report, they concluded there was a missed opportunity for earlier diagnosis. had there been a surgical team review and a ct scan considered, the significance of a large gastric

bubble on melissa's chest x—ray was not recognised and not all clinical reviews were documented. and a review from a senior trust doctor who wasn't involved in melissa's treatment concluded that if surgery had been identified as clinically necessary on the day she first went to hospital... "i believe that ms zoglie's life would have been saved." her chest x—ray carried out on that day showed an abnormally enlarged stomach. based upon the information available at the time, a ct scan would have been an appropriate follow up investigation." i was concerned to read that the doctors in a&e did try to reach surgeons on a number of occasions without success. and so that does raise questions, i think, about the availability of surgeons in a hospital as huge as the royal sussex. and that then leads to some wider issues, i think, essentially around the defensiveness of the trust, because this case on its own would be tragic enough.

but it does come into the context of some wider concerns, i think, about the responsiveness of the trust when complaints are made, the confidence of staff to speak out. we know that there have been issues in the past around whistleblowers feeling that they can't speak out. the trust said it wished to extend its sincere condolences to melissa's family and added... "senior clinicians used their best judgment to diagnose the symptoms she presented with. but tragically, melissa had an extraordinarily rare condition, especially for someone so young. such presentations are extremely challenging for staff trying to make the right decisions around tests and diagnostics. and the coroner agreed there was no clinical indication for further investigations at the time, concluding melissa had died from natural causes." meanwhile, newsnight has discovered that last spring, the trust asked the royal college of surgeons to review its digestive diseases department. that probe is ongoing. and the same department is one of two that sussex police are looking into regarding 105 cases of alleged medical negligence.

we understand melissa zoglie's case is not part of that investigation. do you believe the hospital were open and honest with you? no. nno, not at all. we were there throughout. they've really let us down. we feel disappointed. they haven't learned anything from the mistakes they did. so it's likely they can make the same mistakes over and over again. the trust says they've been in contact with the family throughout, seeking their views, sharing findings, and offering to meet. melissa zoglie's parents are now looking for a new home, because they say their current flat seems empty and quiet without their daughter. it's not the same without her because always when we are home, we feel, oh, she's gone somewhere and she'll be back. but you wait and you realise, oh, no, she's not coming back. the pope has used his annualforeign policy address to condemn the practice of surrogacy,

describing it as "despicable," and has called for a universal ban on surrogate pregnancies. pope francis said that unborn children should be protected and not turned into "an object of human trafficking." in some countries it is still a controversial practice. the first known surrogate baby was born in 1885 and since then many thousands of children have been brought into the world this way. in britain, 'altruistic surrogacy�* — where the surrogate is paid only expenses for carrying the baby — is legal. in some — but very few countries, commercial surrogacy is also legal. anne atkins, writer and novelistjoins me now in the studio, as does gina kinson, who has three children herself, and has carried three surrogates. first of all thank you both for coming in. gina, iwonderwhat she made of what the pope has said? i was quite disappointed with his comments. ifeelwhat

was quite disappointed with his comments. ifeel what i did was not trafficking whatsoever. i feel quite strong as a woman and know what i want to do with my body and i choose to be a surrogate so i am not taken advantage of at all and neither the other children.— advantage of at all and neither the other children. ~ . . , , , other children. what was the impetus for choosing — other children. what was the impetus for choosing to _ other children. what was the impetus for choosing to be _ other children. what was the impetus for choosing to be a surrogate? it i for choosing to be a surrogate? it is not commercial but altruistic surrogacy as it is known so you're not out of pocket. tote surrogacy as it is known so you're not out of pocket.— not out of pocket. we receive exoenses _ not out of pocket. we receive expenses incurred _ not out of pocket. we receive expenses incurred as - not out of pocket. we receive expenses incurred as a i not out of pocket. we receive expenses incurred as a resultj not out of pocket. we receive i expenses incurred as a result of the pregnancy but were not paid at all. i chose to do this because i did not struggle with fertility and i know that many women do and obviously same—sex couples are not able to have children with no uterus. i was lucky to have my three children and i feel empowered as a woman to be able to make that choice to help someone else have their children. what to make of that kind of surrogacy?—

what to make of that kind of surrora ? ., ., surrogacy? you said earlier the first known _ surrogacy? you said earlier the first known case _ surrogacy? you said earlier the first known case was _ surrogacy? you said earlier the first known case was 1885. i surrogacy? you said earlier the first known case was 1885. but| surrogacy? you said earlier the. first known case was 1885. but it goes _ first known case was 1885. but it goes way — first known case was 1885. but it goes way back to the early chapters of genesis — goes way back to the early chapters of genesis. hagar was of a surrogate mother— of genesis. hagar was of a surrogate mother so— of genesis. hagar was of a surrogate mother so sarah could not have a child _ mother so sarah could not have a child so— mother so sarah could not have a child so it — mother so sarah could not have a child so it goes way back. i must say i _ child so it goes way back. i must say i think— child so it goes way back. i must say i think you are amazing, the language — say i think you are amazing, the language from the pope is quite strong — language from the pope is quite strong. he language from the pope is quite stronu. . ., language from the pope is quite stron.. , ., strong. he called it deplorable. very strong- — strong. he called it deplorable. very strong. there _ strong. he called it deplorable. very strong. there has - strong. he called it deplorable. very strong. there has been i strong. he called it deplorable. i very strong. there has been quite a lot of— very strong. there has been quite a lot of support for what is said and i can_ lot of support for what is said and i can understand that. i have had five children and would not do this for anyone — five children and would not do this for anyone else. i think there is a chance _ for anyone else. i think there is a chance of. — for anyone else. i think there is a chance of, an opportunity for exploitation particularly of the poor— exploitation particularly of the poor by— exploitation particularly of the poor by the rich. not in this country. _ poor by the rich. not in this country, i've never heard of shocking _ country, i've never heard of shocking cases in this country but 'ust shocking cases in this country but just as _ shocking cases in this country but

just as people can be exploited for selling _ just as people can be exploited for selling organs, if you're very poor and you _ selling organs, if you're very poor and you get— selling organs, if you're very poor and you get offered a lot of money you need _ and you get offered a lot of money you need to be careful of this. i am also amazed — you need to be careful of this. i am also amazed having given birth to five children that in the 21st century— five children that in the 21st century with not found a better way are less _ century with not found a better way are less painful way. like century with not found a better way are less painful way.— century with not found a better way are less painful way. like growing a child in a lab? _ are less painful way. like growing a child in a lab? i— are less painful way. like growing a child in a lab? i would have - are less painful way. like growing a child in a lab? i would have grown l child in a lab? i would have grown m five in child in a lab? i would have grown my five in a _ child in a lab? i would have grown my five in a lab. _ child in a lab? i would have grown my five in a lab, let— child in a lab? i would have grown my five in a lab, let me _ child in a lab? i would have grown my five in a lab, let me tell- child in a lab? i would have grown my five in a lab, let me tell you! i my five in a lab, let me tell you! but there — my five in a lab, let me tell you! but there is— my five in a lab, let me tell you! but there is not the sensory experience of the womb. find but there is not the sensory experience of the womb. and that is very important _ experience of the womb. and that is very important because _ experience of the womb. and that is very important because we - experience of the womb. and that is very important because we know- experience of the womb. and that is i very important because we know about bonding _ very important because we know about bonding and about the golden hour. let me _ bonding and about the golden hour. let me pick— bonding and about the golden hour. let me pick up on the issue of the poor. people would say it has no business of the state and what is wrong with it? the business of the state and what is wrong with it?— business of the state and what is wrong with it? the state would say all sorts of— wrong with it? the state would say all sorts of things, _ wrong with it? the state would say all sorts of things, why _ wrong with it? the state would say all sorts of things, why should - wrong with it? the state would say all sorts of things, why should you | all sorts of things, why should you not sell— all sorts of things, why should you not sell a — all sorts of things, why should you not sell a kidney if you are poor. i happen— not sell a kidney if you are poor. i happen to — not sell a kidney if you are poor. i happen to believe that some forms of exploitation do not feel like exploitation. i believe that all sex work— exploitation. i believe that all sex work is _ exploitation. i believe that all sex work is exploitation.—

exploitation. i believe that all sex work is exploitation. what to make ofthe work is exploitation. what to make of the idea. — work is exploitation. what to make of the idea, not _ work is exploitation. what to make of the idea, not in _ work is exploitation. what to make of the idea, not in your _ work is exploitation. what to make of the idea, not in your case - work is exploitation. what to make of the idea, not in your case but i work is exploitation. what to make of the idea, not in your case but if| of the idea, not in your case but if there was some commercial game would not necessarily be a bad thing? ladle not necessarily be a bad thing? we do not not necessarily be a bad thing? , do not agree with commercial surrogacy in the uk and the whole. i think that is when you can, then almost becomes, only the rich would then be able to afford surrogacy like in the us, the cost would smile. and it would price people out of the market. at the moment the framework is set that will only receive expenses. and most people can afford surrogate expenses. the thing with surrogacy in the uk is it is regulated in the sense that if you know what you're doing and educate yourself on it, if you follow all the steps that are recommended. but follow all the steps that are recommended.— follow all the steps that are recommended. �* , ., , ., , recommended. but there is a problem with exploitation _ recommended. but there is a problem with exploitation in _ recommended. but there is a problem with exploitation in the, _ recommended. but there is a problem with exploitation in the, in _ recommended. but there is a problem with exploitation in the, in another - with exploitation in the, in another way because you want the law

changed? ladle way because you want the law chanced? ~ ., way because you want the law chanced? ~ . ., . ., ., changed? we want the law changed to come into this — changed? we want the law changed to come into this century, _ changed? we want the law changed to come into this century, basically. - come into this century, basically. it is very archaic and based on the old adoption framework and when i get pregnant with his baby i know from the outset it is not my baby so i'm not wanting to wait for a second time to be able to change my mind or anything. sarah do not want to change their mind, they do not want parental responsibility from birth. at the moment the law says you have the responsibility. it's not the case that many women are infertile and cannot do it themselves and they have to be given, and the men, the full chance, every chance to have a child? if full chance, every chance to have a child? ., , full chance, every chance to have a child? . , , ., child? if we really believe that we would -a child? if we really believe that we would pay for— child? if we really believe that we would pay for ivf _ child? if we really believe that we would pay for ivf on _ child? if we really believe that we would pay for ivf on the - child? if we really believe that we would pay for ivf on the nhs. - child? if we really believe that we i would pay for ivf on the nhs. some areas do. would pay for ivf on the nhs. some areas do- it — would pay for ivf on the nhs. some areas do- it is _ would pay for ivf on the nhs. some areas do. it is unusual _ would pay for ivf on the nhs. some areas do. it is unusual that - would pay for ivf on the nhs. some areas do. it is unusual that you - would pay for ivf on the nhs. some areas do. it is unusual that you get. areas do. it is unusual that you get more than — areas do. it is unusual that you get more than your— areas do. it is unusual that you get more than your first _ areas do. it is unusual that you get more than your first child - areas do. it is unusual that you get more than your first child on - areas do. it is unusual that you get more than your first child on ivf. l more than your first child on ivf. we cannot afford to give everybody

the right _ we cannot afford to give everybody the right. it is not a right but a fantastic— the right. it is not a right but a fantastic blessing. and it is wonderful when you could make it happen— wonderful when you could make it happen and i do admire you hugely. but i happen and i do admire you hugely. but lam _ happen and i do admire you hugely. but i am very nervous of this possibility of changing the law. you knew _ possibility of changing the law. you knew what — possibility of changing the law. you knew what you are doing and did not change _ knew what you are doing and did not change your— knew what you are doing and did not change your mind for the bonding with a _ change your mind for the bonding with a child is an extraordinary and individual— with a child is an extraordinary and individual thing. and for me it happened at the moment of birth. i felt nothing in my pregnancies but at the _ felt nothing in my pregnancies but at the moment of birth i would have killed _ at the moment of birth i would have killed to _ at the moment of birth i would have killed to save that baby. but at the moment of birth i would have killed to save that baby.— killed to save that baby. but you created that _ killed to save that baby. but you created that they _ killed to save that baby. but you created that they be _ killed to save that baby. but you created that they be with - killed to save that baby. but you created that they be with your i created that they be with your husband. ., ~ created that they be with your husband. ., ,, , ., created that they be with your husband. ., ~' ,, ,., , created that they be with your husband. ., ,, i. , . there was no requirement for donald trump to attend a federal appeals court in washington dc today, but he arrived bang on time in his camera—ready presidential motorcade to hear his lawyers argue that he should have presidential immunity from prosecution when it comes to actions taken as president. that's the first of many court cases facing him. here's joe inwood.

donald trump faces many legal challenges, from secret documents to payments to a porn star. but today's hearing relates to possibly the most serious case against the former president — federal charges of conspiracy. were his actions after the 2020 election, and especially onjanuary the 6th, an attempt to subvert democracy? but today wasn't discussing the rights and wrongs of that case. it was about whether the former president should even face trial. speaking after the hearing, he made his feelings clear. ifeel that, as a president, you have to have immunity. very simple. his lawyers argued that without immunity from criminal prosecution, presidents wouldn't be able to do theirjob. if a president has to look over his shoulder or her shoulder every time he or she has to make a controversial decision or after i leave office, am i going to jail for this,

when my political opponents take power, that inevitably dampens the ability of the president. the government's position, were presidents to be immune from all criminal prosecution, then they could do anything. what kind of world are we living | in if, as i understood my friend| on the other side to say here, i a president orders his seal team to assassinate a political rival and resigns, for example, - before an impeachment — not a criminal act. - i president sells a pardon, resignsl or is not impeached — not a crime. i think that is extraordinarily frightening future. - it's not clear when the court will make its judgment, but for many observers, the sooner the better. while this is going on, there is a complete stay of all substantive actions in the criminal case. and, as everyone knows here in the united states, getting this case to trial before the election in november is quite critical to the government, to have accountability one way or the other.

it's worth remembering this is not the only legal proceeding the former president faces. the supreme court is set to rule if he's allowed to stand for election at all, or whether he violated a civil war era amendment to the constitution barring insurrectionists from public office. there are a0 charges over mishandling classified documents, accusations of falsifying business records over payments to a porn star, and he's also charged with election interference in georgia over this call to an official. 2020 was one of the most bitter presidential battles of modern times. it tested us democracy to its limits. the coming contest may push it further still.

joe inwood. robert creamer served as a consultant to the 2016 democratic presidential election campaign, and is founder of poltical strategy firm democracy partners. also on the line is scottie nell hughes, journalist and political commentator. good evening to you both. firstly, to date the focus was on the federal action we also have these different state actions to keep trump off the ballot but all these cases, these legal cases to stop him getting to the white house, do you really think legal mechanism will stop him? hie. i legal mechanism will stop him? no, i think the voters _ legal mechanism will stop him? no, i think the voters will _ legal mechanism will stop him? no, i think the voters will stop _ legal mechanism will stop him? no, i think the voters will stop him and legal mechanism will stop him? iifr, i think the voters will stop him and i think the voters will stop him and i think this election more than anything else is about turnout. most americans do not support donald trump or the maga forces in america

but we have to make sure they vote and that's the big concern, people have to get infused and vote and one of the things these trials do is remind those people how critical it is that they go and vote, both to supportjoe biden and his agenda, what he's done and what he's fighting for, just as importantly, what we are trying to prevent. that is the destruction of american democracy by a person who is a would—be autocrat who has shown himself very clearly to be a person that does not respect democratic principles. but that does not respect democratic --rinciles. �* , , principles. but every time there is an indictment. — principles. but every time there is an indictment, trump's _ principles. but every time there is an indictment, trump's poll- principles. but every time there is| an indictment, trump's poll ratings go up. all this publicity is a dream for him, isn't it? he go up. all this publicity is a dream for him, isn't it?— for him, isn't it? he certainly likes the _ for him, isn't it? he certainly likes the attention _ for him, isn't it? he certainly likes the attention and - for him, isn't it? he certainly likes the attention and it - for him, isn't it? he certainly| likes the attention and it does for him, isn't it? he certainly - likes the attention and it does help in particular in the republican primary because he can position himself is under attack by the deep state. if he is convicted by a jury

for the election of any of these things, the polling shows it will hurt him enormously and that is viewed by voters at a different matter than just being indicted viewed by voters at a different matter thanjust being indicted by the forces that be. let matter than just being indicted by the forces that be.— matter than just being indicted by the forces that be. let me put that to ou, is the forces that be. let me put that to you, is donald _ the forces that be. let me put that to you, is donald trump _ the forces that be. let me put that to you, is donald trump a's - the forces that be. let me put that to you, is donald trump a's push l the forces that be. let me put that. to you, is donald trump a's push for presidential immunity simply a delaying tactic? why doesn't he just say, head if he is confident? come out to all these different indictments and legal cases? because he is constitutionally _ indictments and legal cases? because he is constitutionally protected - indictments and legal cases? because he is constitutionally protected to - he is constitutionally protected to have presidential immunity and if you do— have presidential immunity and if you do wave that come you are opening — you do wave that come you are opening a _ you do wave that come you are opening a pandora's box not only for past presidents put future ones and that is— past presidents put future ones and that is what this is about, that is what _ that is what this is about, that is what all— that is what this is about, that is what all of— that is what this is about, that is what all of these cases, they are

setting _ what all of these cases, they are setting such a scary precedent going forward _ setting such a scary precedent going forward regarding the fact that now we have _ forward regarding the fact that now we have the doj forward regarding the fact that now we have the dc] the justice system going _ we have the dc] the justice system going after a political opposition of the _ going after a political opposition of the current president of the united — of the current president of the united states, joe biden. and as unpopular— united states, joe biden. and as unpopular as my colleague likes to make _ unpopular as my colleague likes to make donald trump to be, guess what, he is more _ make donald trump to be, guess what, he is more popular right now according _ he is more popular right now according to the polls, which is very— according to the polls, which is very rare — according to the polls, which is very rare in _ according to the polls, which is very rare in past elections, than joe biden — very rare in past elections, than joe biden. that is because these cases— joe biden. that is because these cases are — joe biden. that is because these cases are being shown to be not only baseless _ cases are being shown to be not only baseless political prosecutions but time and _ baseless political prosecutions but time and time again politically motivated. the case today, the latest _ motivated. the case today, the latest one, a panel of three judges, two being _ latest one, a panel of three judges, two being obama employees and the other the _ two being obama employees and the other the lead accuser against justice — other the lead accuser against justice kavanagh think she witnessed his improprieties so it's a little bit of— his improprieties so it's a little bit of that, guess what committee did not— bit of that, guess what committee did not win — bit of that, guess what committee did not win and nobly believed her when _ did not win and nobly believed her when she — did not win and nobly believed her when she said that he would... nohody— when she said that he would... nobody believed open also we have this think— nobody believed open also we have this think of the constitution, and this think of the constitution, and this says — this think of the constitution, and

this says that donald trump is immune — this says that donald trump is immune has presidential immunity because _ immune has presidential immunity because he was convicted and impeached punt that is the law, democrats don't like it, their campaign _ democrats don't like it, their campaign against donald trump is failing _ campaign against donald trump is failing mainly because of their strategy— failing mainly because of their strategy is based on fear and nothing — strategy is based on fear and nothing positive about what joe biden— nothing positive about what joe biden is— nothing positive about what joe biden is doing. can nothing positive about what joe biden is doing.— nothing positive about what joe biden is doinu. ., , , . biden is doing. can i 'ust say, what ou make biden is doing. can i 'ust say, what you make of _ biden is doing. can i 'ust say, what you make of what _ biden is doing. can ijust say, what you make of what she _ biden is doing. can ijust say, what you make of what she says - biden is doing. can ijust say, what you make of what she says that. you make of what she says that actually this is politically motivated?— actually this is politically motivated? , ., ., actually this is politically motivated? , .,., , motivated? first off, no one is above the _ motivated? first off, no one is above the law _ motivated? first off, no one is above the law in _ motivated? first off, no one is above the law in the _ motivated? first off, no one is above the law in the united i motivated? first off, no one is - above the law in the united states, from the first president we had, washington, it was clear with or do respect me was not a king, he was subject to all the same laws as everyone else in the united states and is a principle of american democracy that has been here for 250 years and continues to be pumped the notion that he is a new from prosecution for ordinary acts is just absurd.