to know that the bubble of security around the american president is the tightest security you could imagine. yeah, and it's notjust security on the day. that's the other thing that i rememberfrom my time in the states and actually watching presidential tours around the world as well. i mean, i followed george w bush once, of all places, to sedgefield, to tony blair's old constituency, and you land there in air force one at the nearby airport and they ferry you in a helicopter, in a blackhawk helicopter, to the then prime minister's house — because they don't think the roads are safe, because they haven't been able to scan them. and they brought their own fuel as well, i remember, for the blackhawks because they didn't trust british air fuel. so there is a huge amount of effort, "no expense spared" effort, that goes into the secret service's work in normal times. the allegation now is that

that effort didn't go into this. so they hadn't scanned it enough in advance, they didn't know that there was high ground there, they weren't liaising properly with the local police. and further, some republicans saying, "you know what? the secret service has gone woke." like all other institutions they accuse of going woke, it's too much diversity, equity and inclusion. and they point at some of the pictures that you saw on television, particularly the female security officials, who looked, on occasion, as if they were a bit lost. i mean, goodness, you'd expect that you would do in those circumstances. but there's all sorts of pressure now on the secret service and on the individuals who were concerned, again, saying, "why was he allowed to do that fist pump in the air?" it made a great shot, probably the iconic shot, possibly the election winning shot, but actually, that's not the way the secret service rolls. generally, when there's a danger to someone, to the principal, they bundle them very, very roughly into what they regard as cover, whether it's onto the ground

or into a car or whatever. you have to look at the pictures, they're all online, of ronald reagan's assassination attempt back in 1981. there was no kind of fist bump or any of the rest of it. they were on him, physically on him, and down to the ground and into the car. so why did they allow donald trump to do all of that? because if there had been another shooter, the point being that they would have got a shot in. so, my goodness, there are questions and real questions — not just sort of fake ones from conspiracy theorists. there are real questions about how on earth this all happened. and, sumi, i hadn't quite clocked just the quite long—running discourse there had been around the secret service, because we in the uk have that sort of clint eastwood, line of fire, they're uber—professional, kind of cliched view of them, but actually it doesn't take a lot of digging to see lots of claims, some of them maybe a bit spurious and a bit conspiracy—ish, but some of them actually seemingly quite potentially valid going back the last few years about the secret service.

yeah, that's right, adam. and i think it's important to note, like you said, that a lot of conspiracies have been circulating online since what happened on saturday and it's important to keep our focus on the facts that we do know at this point. but i think one of the most important points is what justin mentioned, is the questions about the secret service's organisation and what they say — what critics now say — is this woke shift within the secret service. and we know that congress has actually called the head of the secret service for a hearing, as they're demanding answers as well. there have been questions asked about the ability of the secret service to carry out security at such big events. and in fact, you know, one of the questions asked in this case as well is whether secret service had adequately actually canvassed the area and whether they had the right plan in place to make sure that someone could not climb on a shed 150 yards away. so this is indeed going to be a very difficult moment for the secret service, as this massive convention is under way.

they say they've got it here and that security's good here. right, let's talk about president biden�*s response. we saw him doing remarks a couple of times over the weekend that then culminated with that kind of... like the real box office thing an american president can do, which is sitting at the desk in the oval office taking over the tv channels and doing that presidential thing. let's have a listen. you know, the political rhetoric in this country| has gotten very heated. it's time to cool it down. we all have a responsibility to do that _ yes, we have deeply felt strong disagreements. l the stakes in this election are enormously high. - i mean, justin, there's so many things there — first of all, just biden widening the scope of people who've been victims of this kind of thing to include all parties and all levels of politics, notjust making this about the attack on donald trump. look, i mean... i don't know, maybe it worked for some people, but it just felt to me to be rather bloodless. i don't know what sumi thinks.

just, it needed... i would contrast what he said — in the very formal, stilted setting — with what josh shapiro said. josh shapiro is the governor of pennsylvania. he's a democrat. he's one of the people who many democrats believe should be the presidential candidate this time around, ratherthanjoe biden. and he, for me, just knocked it out of the park, because he said all the things that you'd expect, the kind of comforter—in—chief to say. so in the state of pennsylvania, where this awful thing happened, he talked about the fireman who was killed and his family, called him a hero. he'd talked to his widow. he'd talked to his daughters. it wasjust something immediate and from the heart. and it didn't mention other political violence, it just concentrated on this. and to me, i think to a lot of americans, what biden said. i mean, ok, he ticked all the boxes, but the stuff

about violence was quite boilerplate, really. and it was all, you know, everyone says there's no place for violence, but he didn't really address any of it in any detail. and he didn't, crucially, ithink, just do this stuff that american leaders are meant to do, which is talk personally to the people who had been involved. not to compare events at all, because they're incomparable, but i always remember coming home one night after work, after the sandy hook massacre at the elementary school, and watching obama's address about that, and being so... like, it was... i hate to say shakespearean, because your today programme co—presenter amol rajan says it's a really weak comparison, but it was an extraordinary bit of rhetoric at a moment of immense national tragedy. and you think back to all the others. you think of obama, you think of bill clinton being able to do it, you think of ronald reagan, back in the day, being able to do it with the challenger disaster. yes!

i mean, it's actually the job of the president, you know, adam. and i don't know what sumi's view is. ijust feel that if you can't do that — i mean, in a sense, a bit cruel to say it — but, you know, what are you for? i mean, there are all sorts of decisions that cabinet members and the secretary of state are taking, and other people are chipping in on, the national security adviser. your big moment is when there is a national moment of coming together, and you need to be able to do it, and if you don't quite manage to do it, it's tricky. sumi? yeah, we absolutely have to see these remarks within the context of what was happening a few days before the assassination attempt, which was this massive crisis in the democratic party over president biden�*s mental acuity, whether he is the right person to be the democrats�* nominee. and, you know, he was actually scheduled to speak for about ten minutes, and we were all waiting for the address. it ended up being around six minutes. and i agree withjustin. it was quite short, it was quite dry, and of course he takes over all the networks, so has a big audience there. i mean, i think the one thing

that i took away from it that was a little bit interesting was, a lot of questions were asked as to, "how will president biden continue the campaign going forward after this horrible event?" he did say, "look, at the rnc, there are going to be people on stage who criticise my record, my policies. i'm going to be going on the road this week to talk about my record, to tout my record, and we have differing visions for america," and then he went on to say, "that doesn't mean that we have to resort to violence." so that gave us a bit of an idea of how he might proceed in the coming days. he's heading to nevada, which is a critical battleground state. but i thinkjustin is right. i mean, everyone is hanging on, or has been hanging on, president biden�*s every word, and it probably wasn't the address to the nation that some people might have been expecting or hoping for. justin, just before you go, because i know you've got to head off, butjust before we started recording, you said, "look at the times, look at the times." what did you want me to see there? yeah, i'm just looking on my phone here. so the times have got a yougov poll.

yougov are very active — a lot of british pollsters, actually, are very active in and very respected in the united states — but yougov have just done a survey, and it's kind of what you expect, but it's all the battleground states, so all the states that could potentially change hands. most states won't change hands. california will go to to whoever the democratic nominee is. texas, oklahoma will go to whoever the republican nominee is, which it will be donald trump. but there are probably six or seven states that won't, that you can kind of fight over and think maybe go either way and they will decide the election. and what the times has said in this yougov poll, i'm just looking at it now, is that all of them, all seven are going to go to donald trump at the moment, and three or four of them are being kind of toss—ups. so, you know, it's not a complete cratering, because that doesn't happen in this really polarised election. there are plenty of people who will still vote forjoe biden. whether or not he can move his arms or move his lips or whatever, they'll still vote for him, and the same with donald trump. but at the margins, this does make a difference. and some of the margins

in those states, you know, if you remember last time around, i can't remember what the figures were, but like 30,000 voters in an entire state were deciding these things. and if they all go against biden, there is not a path for him to win the presidency. there just isn't. and that then reinvigorates the whole business, which has kind of gone off the back burner. can you reinvigorate something that's off a burner? anyway, you know what i mean. it reinvigorates the whole business of, "what do you do about biden?", which i think biden and the white house had thought was probably dead, at least for a bit, because of what had happened to donald trump and this awful event in pennsylvania. but now, you know, these polls, and if there are more of them will reinvigorate, because it kind of goes to the question, do we really care about this? you know, the democrats have been demonising trump. they've been saying he's going to be, you know, a disaster for american democracy, he's going to imprison his opponents, etc, etc, etc, "this is the most important election of all time." and then suddenly they say, "oh, what the heck — we'lljust putjoe biden in,

although we know from all the polls that he is very, very likely to lose"? or is that a moment where they say, "no, actually, we believe what we've been telling you, and because of that, we're going to put even more pressure on him to go"? justin, thank you so much. ifeel like we've had our own little bonus extra americast just for us on newscast, so thank you very much. pleasure, adam. and sumi, i've got you for another 3.5 minutes, so i'm going to give you a choice. this is multiple—choice, your last three minutes. do you want to... oh, dear! i was never good at multiple—choice! well, i mean, let's make it as easy as possible. do you want to talk about this judgment in florida, about the confidential documents case, or do you want to give us a little preview about the next kind of like ten hours at the republican convention? your choice, take it away. that's a really hard choice. let's talk about the preview of the rest of the convention, because we are, as i said, expecting a vice presidential nomination and because, you might hear behind me, the crowd is actually starting to fill in.

there are a bunch of delegates who are now starting to fill in. i'm just going to take a look over my shoulder. you see all the different state flags, and you see everyone kind of starting to take their seats as the programme is expected to get started. so let's talk about that, adam. well, 0k. when do i need to tune in? what are kind of the key marker points? is it going to bejd vance who's going to be selected as the running mate? and i was rereading his autobiography, which — i mean, he called it hillbilly elegy — tells you a bit about his background. yeah, certainly does. so there are about 2,400, 2,400 delegates who are expected to be on hand to officially nominate donald trump. so you probably could tune in, you know, in the next few hours, i would say, to keep an eye on what happens. one of the reasons you should definitely tune in is because we've heard rumours that donald trump himself will make an appearance here today. he might possibly take the stage, as we said, a little bit earlier, so that would be something to watch, as his first public appearance after that assassination attempt in pennsylvania. and there are official

speakers as well. some members of donald trump's family, like his sons donjr and eric, are scheduled to speak. so we will have to see who takes the stage first. we don't have the official schedule of that just yet. as for the vice presidential nominee, jd vance is rumoured to be the forerunner at this point. and as you said, you know, a lot of people might know him from that hillbilly elegy book. and we know that world leaders... i mean, i rememberthe german chancellor, olaf scholz, saying he read that book and was in tears because he found it such a moving account of growing up in that white working—class environment and making it to success, and that it gave a bit of an idea of what some working—class communities around the world are facing. look, i think one of the reasons thatjd vance could be the favourite at this point — that's what we're hearing here — is because he's been a staunch supporter of donald trump. he is young, he presents... he is a senatorfrom ohio, so that is an important state in the midwest,

of course, for republicans as well. and he's been someone who's been on all the morning talk shows, talking about president trump's record and why he should be president again. he is someone who really made that conservative shift. i mean, you'll remember, adam, originally he criticised donald trump and said that he didn't hold the solutions for the white working class. now he's moved to become one of donald trump's biggest supporters — quite a political transformation. and he's been incredibly dogged in his criticism of president biden. and he's been very critical of aid to ukraine as well for international listeners, so he's such an interesting character because of that transformation. and it looks right now, because he's also friends with the president's son, donjr, that it could bejd vance. we'lljust have to wait and see. and it's so interesting in british politics seeing how many people here go, "oh, i'm friends withjd vance!" it's almost like they're trying to get in early. right, sumi, thank you very much. yeah, thank you so much, adam. a bit more international news now, because the new foreign secretary, david lammy, is in the middle east. he's been in israel, done various things like meeting front line politicians there, meeting the families

of the hostages who are still being held in gaza by hamas. and so i decided to catch up with our bbc diplomatic correspondent, james landale, to get the latest on that conflict, and also to find out what david lammy can actually achieve or be seen to be trying to achieve there. and becausejustin and the americast crew were in this studio when i needed to have that conversation with james, i went to our other spare studio to have that conversation with james. before we delve into kind of the daily politics of it, can we just step back and have a bit of a sitrep about the israel—gaza conflict for people who've not tuned into it for a little while? and i know it's hard to sum up, like, an entire thing, butjust give us some fragments that will help us get up—to—date. 0k. the fighting continues in gaza. it remains incredibly intense. in recent days, the israelis have launched quite a few strikes in different parts of gaza. particularly, they have been trying to kill, frankly,

one of the leaders of hamas, mohammed deif, who, you know, they accuse of being behind the october attacks. and it seems that... there are reports of quite a lot of civilians dying in those attempted attacks. we still don't know what has actually happened to that individual, whether or not he has been killed or not. the israelis aren't being 100% about it. so that's gaza. the situation remains terrible. access to humanitarian aid remains very limited. the famousjetty, the pier that the west and the americans stuck on the side to get aid, that is not really working, and that's going to be removed at some point. if not, it hasn't been removed.... because i'd read that it was sort of operational, butjust not a very like high volume look. the problem is, that thing was designed for rivers. it wasn't designed for choppy seas and orfor temporary beach landings or things like that

where you go and... you know, if you know anything about the sea, the sea state varies, and there's a limit to how heavy the sea can get before that thing just starts breaking up. so at various stages, they've had to dismantle bits and nip it round the corner into ashdod port, because that's the irony. there's a perfectly good port just up the road that could perfectly do this. well, ijust... not to get too kind of like novelistic about it, but that's just such an emblem ofjust how desperate to help the west were but how impotent they were, because israel actually controlled all the access. so when there was a humanitarian crisis, it was a crisis that could have been alleviated more if israel had allowed more in. that is absolutely right, and also illustrated by the fact that — i remember talking to policymakers about this — the origins of the pier as a policy initially was designed to put pressure onto the israelis to allow access in, and then subsequently it became a symbol of western activity, so that when the west were putting pressure on the israelis to get more humanitarian aid in the west could say, "well, look, we're doing this.

why can't you do that?" in other words, the pier had a political symbolism as much as it did a practical one. so there's that. and then finally, just very quickly on the northern border, there are still lots of worries that at some point the low level conflict — well, you know, low level/high level conflict — between hezbollah in lebanon and the israelis is going to heat up at some point, with fears that the israelis will attack hezbollah properly, with force, at scale, simply because at the moment, there is a buffer zone in northern israel where about 80,000 israelis have been removed, and they're currently living in hotels on friends�* bunks and they�*re currently living in hotels, on friends�* bunks and beds and things. and they�*re pretty unhappy that they can�*t go home. right, so david lammy is in the region. let�*s listen to a little clip of what he�*s been saying, and then you can decode it for us. i hope that we see a hostage deal emerge in the coming days, and i am using all diplomatic

efforts — indeed, last week with the g7 nations, and particularly with tony blinken — pressing for that hostage deal. and i hope, too, that we see a ceasefire soon and we bring an alleviation to the suffering and the intolerable loss of life that we're now seeing also in gaza. so that�*s labour�*s position. what is labour�*s position, really? well, the overt position is that they want an immediate ceasefire, they want to get humanitarian aid in and they want the hostages released. those are the three things that mr lammy has been repeating at length. but what is interesting about this trip is that, you know, he�*s doing all the right things, he�*s ticking the right boxes. he�*s going to see... you know, he�*s been to see prime minister netanyahu.

he�*s been to see the new the newish prime minister of the palestinian authority, mr mustafa. he�*s been to see hostage families — some of those with links with the uk, others not. he�*s been to see the israeli president. so he�*s doing the rounds and seeing, you know, all the people that anybody would expect. what�*s really interesting about this trip is it�*s very, very controlled when it comes to media. no media travelling with him... well, i�*m surprised you�*re not there. well... but that�*s why! you might say that. let me make a contrast. when david cameron was appointed to the position of foreign secretary last autumn, he took me with him on his trip and we got all access. when, for example, the defence secretary, the new defence secretary, mr healey, went to kyiv immediately after the election... yeah, the day after. ..he took the political editor

of the sun newspaper with him. and i remember seeing pictures of the political editor of the sun actually sitting in the meetings... yeah. ..with mr healey. posted a picture with him and zelensky. so, you know, there�*s choices about access. yeah. in this case, mr lammy has chosen not to take anybody with him. and that is, i think, because he knows he�*s going to get questions that he doesn�*t yet have answers to. he did, in fairness to him, a pool clip, one of those things where a broadcaster asks questions on behalf of all the other british media, and we get, you know, the answers back and they�*re fed to everybody. and the questions he was asked were all the questions, actually, we want to know, which is, is the labour government going to ban arms sales to israel? what does it think about international humanitarian law? does it believe that the british weapons that are being sold are potentially in breach of international humanitarian law? what is... sorry to interrupt — because previously the conservative

government kind of took a very legalistic view of that. and they said, "if our lawyers in the foreign office tell us something has changed, we will think about stopping those arms sales. "but the lawyers haven�*t said anything yet," which provoked the reaction from other people saying, "well, the law is one thing, but you also have values and politics." oh, yeah, absolutely. any british government, any government, could stop arms sales just because it wanted to make a policy decision. but it is based on the law. when he was in opposition, mr lammy called for some of that law legal advice to be published. whether he�*s as keen now that he�*s in government remains to be seen. but those are the questions he�*s going to be asked. also, is the uk going to carry on or start refunding the un agency in gaza, unrwa, which it stopped funding some time ago when there were allegations of links with hamas and involvement between some people who worked for the agency and the october attacks? and there�*s also the really interesting question about the international criminal court, which, if you remember, had the prosecutor for that court has asked the court to issue an arrest warrant for mr netanyahu for alleged war crimes. now, the former government put up a sort of legal red flag and said, "hang on a minute, is that fair? is israel technically under the jurisdiction of the icc, this court, or not?"

it�*s the sort of legal... but it was seen as very much a delaying tactic because it�*s also the question of the international criminal court, because this is the court, if you remember, the chief prosecutor has asked the court to issue an arrest warrant against mr netanyahu, the israeli prime minister, for alleged war crimes and, you know, also the hamas leaders as well. now, the british government, the former british government led by the conservatives, said... they raised a legal red flag and said, "look, hang on a minute. does the icc, this court, actually have jurisdiction over the israelis?" because they don�*t recognise it, like the americans. the americans don�*t recognise the court. so, "does it still have jurisdiction?", which was seen by many as a delaying tactic. so the current new government has to decide whether or not to take that red flag off the table and allow the icc to carry on. now, i think the reason mr lammy was not keen to be persistently asked about this at every occasion on a trip to to israel is,

i think, two reasons. one is because i think it�*sjust the early days of a new government. they want to get their ducks in a row. i think also that they didn�*t want to be seen to be rushing into a decision on this that would somehow perhaps be seen as a response to the election. because if you remember, obviously, the election was very difficult for labour when it came to this issue. some mps were not elected because of people voting in favour of pro—gaza candidates... there�*s potentially five seats that they didn�*t win. five seats. and i think... so there�*s a sense within some within the labour party who say, "look, we don�*t want to be seen to be making decisions simply in response to some kind of electoral pressure." they want it to be seen as deliberative. but also i think that, as ever, these kind of issues take time to work through. and we�*ve got to remember, this government is only, what, ten days old? they�*re still trying to work out where the coffee machine is and how to work the printer. and so these kind of decisions, i think, they�*lljust want it to... but mr lammy, in his pool clip,

made very clear that he will make these announcements, you know, in due course shortly to parliament. so i don�*t think they�*re that far off. and presumably, though, david lammy doesn�*t know where the printer is or the coffee machine because he�*s hardly been in his office? because actually, he�*s been travelling, what, 75% of the time since the election? yeah, and that�*s what foreign secretaries do. they travel. they are there to be outside of the country, batting for britain. and if you think about it, when you�*re a new foreign secretary and a new government, you�*ve got a lot of people to see, engage with, just touch base with, so that when you actually need to start having proper conversations with them, you�*ve already done the "hi, how are you? nice to meet you. you know, did i know your father or something?" and just to go back to the israel—gaza situation, i mean, people talk about peace, and it seems like a sort of quite ridiculously big word to bandy about, but in terms of the process for achieving, whether it�*s ceasefire in the short term or a more permanent kind of

long term answer, where are we at? well, certainly no long term answer. the short term possibility of a ceasefire and hostage release by hamas — i mean, those talks continue on and off involving the egyptians, the qataris, the israelis and obviously hamas and the americans. remember, they�*re proxy talks. you know, the israelis and hamas are not talking directly to each other. but those talks... that�*s why it takes so long as well, because there�*s like multiple layers to go through. and actually, the real reason why there�*s length of time is getting information and decisions back from the hamas leadership from within gaza, because for obvious reasons, that�*s hard. and then just where we started the episode, looking at the situation in the us, i mean, is biden making any headway with his plan for gaza? because he�*s got his three—fold plan, hasn�*t he? or actually, does his domestic

troubles and everything else that�*s happening in america mean that actually this just doesn�*t get any attention any more? look, i think everybody is aware that there is a particular window before the us election bites hard, but that window is getting smaller and smaller and narrower and narrower as every day goes by. and i think right now, the focus of the biden administration is on survival and how to deal with, you know, the political pressures against biden from within his own democratic team, but also, you know, the events of the weekend and how that�*s going to transform things. so i think at the moment, as ever, us attention is on itself rather than in the rest of the world. and that�*s all for this episode of newscast. we�*ve recorded some bonus bits that you can listen to in the podcast edition, which is available on bbc sounds, and we�*ll be back with another one very soon. bye— bye. newscast from the bbc.

welcome to newsday. reporting live from singapore, i�*m steve lai. the headlines. donald trump is in milwaukee — where he�*s been confirmed as the republican party�*s presidential nominee — just two days after a gunman tried to kill him. mr trump�*s also revealed his pick for vice president — the ohio senatorjd vance. ajudge in florida has thrown out a criminal case against the former president — who had been accused of mishandling classified documents. also ahead — a victorious return home for spain�*s euro winners. the team are welcomed by the

king and the prime minister — before heading to central madrid for a victory parade. we begin this hour in the us swing state of wisconsin — where two days after their presidential candidate narrowly escaped an assassination attempt, thousands of republicans have gathered in the city of milwaukee for their convention, which has formally confirmed donald trump as its nominee for the election in november. in the last few hours mr trump has confirmed the ohio senatorjd vance will be his vice—presidential running mate. this is the moment mr vance was announced at the convention — to huge fanfare. if the ticket wins, mr vance, who is 39, will be the second youngest vice president in american history. mr vance has opposed immigration and assistance to ukraine. earlier, mr trump won a significant legal victory, when a federaljudge threw out a case in which he was charged with illegally holding onto classified papers after leaving office.

our north america correspondent sarah