or not even dr. eastman knew his theory didn't hold water. mister jacob, you discussed and even debated this theory at length with doctor eastman to doctor eastman. ever tell you what he thought the u. s. supreme court would do if it had to decide this issue. yes, ma'am, we had an extended discussion, an hour and a half to 2 hours on january 5th. and when i pressed him on the point, i said, john, if the vice president did what you're asking him to do, we would lose 9 to nothing in the supreme court wouldn't. and he initially started it, well, i think maybe you would lose only $7.00 to $2.00 and after some further discussion acknowledged, well, yeah, you're right. we would lose no nothing. i appreciate that in our investigation, the select committee is obtained evidence suggesting that dr. eastman never really believed his own theory. let me explain. on the screen, you can see

a draft letter to the president from october 2020. in this letter, an idea was proposed that the vice president could determine which electors the count at the joint session of congress. but the person writing and blue vis rates that argument. the person who wrote the comments and blue wrote, quote, the 12th amendment only says that the president of the senate opens the ballads in the joint session and then in the passive voice, the vote shall then be counted. the comments in blue further state? no. where does it suggest that the president of the senate gets to make the determination on his own judge looting? does it surprise you that the author of those comments in blue was in fact, johnny's been

yes, he does, congressman oh, but let me watching this unfold. let me try to unpack what was at the root of what i have called the blue print to overturn the 2020 election. and it is this and i had foreshadowed this answer in my earlier testimony. to congresswoman cheney mystery easement from the beginning said to the president that there was both legal as well as historic. oh president for the vice president overturn the election. and what we've heard today,

i believe it is, is what happened within the white house and elsewhere. as all the players led by mister eastman, got wrapped around the axle by the historical evidence claim by mysteries. me. let me explain very simply this is what i said would require a digression that i would be glad to undertake if he wished. in short, if i had been advising the vice president the united states on january 6th

and even if then vice president jefferson and even then vice president john adams. and even then vice president richard nixon had done exactly what the president of the united states wanted is vice president to do i would have laid my body across the road before i

would have led, the vice president overturned the 2020 election on the basis of that historical precedent, but what this body needs to know and now america needs to know is that that was the center piece of the plan to overturn the 2020 election. it was the historical precedent in the years and with the vice president that i, i, named as congressman rascan understands well. and the, the effort by mystery has been and others was to to drive that historical

precedent up to and under that single sentence, single christine sentence, in the 12th amendment to the united states constitution. taking advantage of, if you will, what many have said is the an artful wording of that sentence in the 12th amendment. scholars before 2020 would have used that historic all precedent to argue not that vice president pence could overturn the 2020 election by accepting non

certified state electoral votes. but they would have made arguments as to some substantive not merely procedural authority, possessed by the vice president, the united states on, on the statutorily prescribed day for counting the electoral college votes. this is, um, this his constitutional mischief judge. i think that's it. i think that is a good point and i think it kind of begs the question that if the vice president had this power to determine the outcome of a presidential election, why hasn't it ever been used before? why hasn't that ever happened? why hasn't a vice president simply rejected the outcome of an election and declared some one

else the winner? and instead, as the chairman mentioned in his opening for over 2 centuries, vice president to presided over the joint sessions of congress in a purely ceremonial role. this even includes is mr. jacob, mention vice president al gore. for those of us who are old enough to remember. the 2000 election came down to one state, florida. there were weeks of recounts and litigation after the election. and al, gore conceded, of course, al gore was vice president at the time. but he never suggested that he could simply declare himself the winner of the 2000 election. when he presided over the counting of the electoral votes. let's hear what vice president gore said when he described the situation he faced in 2000 hoard and saw the united states of america in all of human history. in lincoln's phrase, we still are the last best hope of human kind. i am the choice between one's own disappointment in your personal career and upholding the noble

traditions of american democracy breezy. joyce, when it comes down to it, mr. jacob. dr. ethan say whether he would want other vice president, such as al gore, after the 2000 election, or camel harris after the 2024 election to have the power to decide the outcome of the of the election. so this was one of the many points that we discussed on january 5th and he had come into that meeting, trying to persuade us that there was some validity to his theory. i viewed it as my objective to persuade him to acknowledge he was just wrong. and i thought this had to be one of the most powerful arguments. i mean, john, back in 2000. you weren't jumping up and saying al gore had this authority to do that. you would not want carmella harris to be able to exercise that kind of

authority in 2024 when i hope republicans will win the election. and i know you hope that to john and he said, absolutely, al gore did not have a basis to do it. in 2000 comma harris shouldn't be able to do it in 2024. but i think you should do it today. mark short told the select committee that vice president pence consulted with one of his predecessors, vice president dan quayle. regarding the role of the vice president, vice president quayle confirmed pence. his view that the role was purely ceremonial . mister short arts also told the committee that he mister short, received a call from former house speaker. paul ryan, here is mister short's description of his conversation with speaker ryan. she who i am wanting to call and say, you know, you don't have any greater authority. and i, i said mister speaker, you know, mike, you know, he doesn't know, he recognized and we sort of laughed about it and he said, i get it. and he later spoke to the vice president to i think,

have the same conversation. fortunately for the fate of our republic, vice president pence refuse to go along with president trump's demands that he determine the outcome of the presidential election. mr. jacob, what was the vice president's reaction? when you discussed with him the theory that the vice president could decide the outcome of the election. congressman, as i testified the vice president's 1st instinct was that there was no way that any one person, particularly the vice president who is on the ticket. and has a vested outcome in the election could possibly have the authority to decide it by rejecting electors or to decisively alter the outcome by suspending the joint session for the 1st time in history in order to try to get a different outcome from state legislatures. despite the fact that the vice

president had a strongly held and correct view that he could not decide the outcome of the election. president trump launched a multi we campaign. both public and private pressure to get the vice president mike pence to violate the constitution. here are some examples of the intense pressure, the vice president faced from all sides. and what is chief of staff thought of it? i comes through her as i have because i agree. i agree vice president through for us is a great guy. louis city does it come through? i will like of what is much. was it your impression that the vice president had directly conveyed his position on these issues to the president matches to the world through a dear colleague letter, but directly to present many times and had been consistent in conveying his

position to the present barrington system. i am, i am aware of the fact that the president was upset with the way pen to acted. are we to assume that this is going to be a climactic battle? well, i think a lot of that depends on the courage and the spine of the individuals involved it. that'd be a nice way to say, again in my vice president mike pence that i think we've been clears what the vice president device present me clear with the president. i think i've been clear at mark knows, i think the vice president is going to throw down tomorrow and do the right thing. because lou, like i said before, this is a time for choosing people are going to look back at this moment tomorrow. and remember, we're every single one of their elected officials work. did they vote for the rule of law and getting these elections right? or do they give it away to the democrats or the people who cheated and stole their way through the selection? definitely in the you know, i got back into town as pox. they like the 5th and the 6 the, the present was been are all the attention was on what mike would do or what mike

wouldn't do. the vice president really was not wavering in his commitment to what he, what is responsibility was and so yeah, was it, was it painful? sure. the president's pressure campaign started in december. for example, although the vice president made his views clearly and unmistakably known to the president and others in the white house on december 23rd, president trump retreated a memo from an individual named ivan reitman, entitled operation pence card. that called on the vice president to refuse the electoral college votes from certain states that had certified joe biden is the winner. president trump started his pressure campaign in december, but he dialed up the pressure is january 6th approached

the testimony we have received in our investigation indicates that by the time january 4th arrived president trumpet already engaged in a quote, multi we campaign to pressure the vice president to decide the outcome of the election. the sit included private conversations between the 2 leaders trumps tweets, and at least one meeting with members of congress. we understand that the vice president started his day on january 4th with a rally in georgia for the republican candidates in the us senate run off. when the vice president returned to washington, he was summoned to meet with the president regarding the upcoming joint session of congress. mr. jacob, who attended that meeting. the attendees were the vice president, the president mark short, the chief of staff to the vice president myself, and john eastman. there was about a 5 minute period where mark meadows came in on a different issue. let's show a photo that meeting mister jacob during that meeting between the president and the

vice president. what theories did dr. eastman present regarding the role of the vice president in counting the electoral votes? during the meeting on january 4th, mister eastman was opining that there were 2 legally viable arguments as to authority, as that the vice president could exercise 2 days later on january sex. one of them was that he could reject electoral votes outright. and the other was that he could use his capacity as presiding officer to suspend the proceedings and declare essentially a 10 day recess. and during which states that he deemed to be disputed, there is a list of 5 to 7 states that i am the exact number changed from conversation to

conversation. but that the vice president could issue and demand to the state legislatures in those states to re examine the election and declare who had won each of those states. so he said that both of those were legally viable options . he said that he did not recommend upon question, and he did not recommend what he called the more aggressive option, which was reject outright because he thought that that would be less politically palatable. the imprimatur of state legislature authority would be necessary to ultimately am have a public acceptance of an outcome in favor of president trump. and so he advocated that the preferred course of action would be the procedural route of suspending the joint session and sending the election back to the states. mr. jacob,

i know you won't discuss the direct conversations between the president, the vice president. so rather than asking you what the vice president said in that meeting, i'll ask you more general question. did the vice president ever waiver in his position, that he could not unilaterally decide which electors to accept? the vice president never budged from the position that i have described as his 1st instinct, which was that it just made no sense from everything that he knew and had studied about our constitution. that one person would have that kind of authority. did the vice president ever waiver in his position that he could not delay certification and send it back to the states? no, he did not. did dr. eastman admit in front of the president that his proposal would violate the electoral account act? so during that meeting on the 4th, i think i raised the problem that both of mister eastman's proposals would violate several provisions of the electoral count act. mister

easement acknowledged that that was the case and that even what he viewed as the more politically palatable option would violate several provisions. but he thought that we could do so because in his view the electoral can act was unconstitutional . and when i raised concerns that that position would likely lose in court, his view was that the court simply wouldn't get involved. they would invoke the political question doctrine and therefore we could have some comfort proceeding out with that path. mr. wood, which is to really reiterate, he told you, maybe this was in a later conversation, but he told you at some point that if in fact the issue over got to the supreme court, his theory would lose 90 correct. the next morning i'm starting around 11 or 1130. we met for an hour and a half to 2 hours and in that meeting, and i've already described the text structure, history,

conversation that we started walking through all of that. and i said, you know, to john, basically what you have is some text that may be a little bit ambiguous, but then nothing else that would support it, including the fact that nobody would ever want that to be the rule. wouldn't we lose 9 to nothing in the supreme court? and again, he initially started, well, maybe you'd only lose $72.00, but ultimately acknowledged that no, we would lose $90.00. no judge would support his argument. after his meeting with the vice president, donald trump flew to georgia for a rally in support of the republican candidates in the united states senate run off . even though the vice president was had been steadfast and resisting the president's pressure. president trump continued to publicly pressure vice president pence in his george of speech rather than focusing exclusively on the georgia senate run off,

trump turned his attention to mike pence. here's what the president said during that rally and georgia head comes through for us. i have to i agree, i agree, vice president comes through for is he's a great guy louis city. does it come through? i will like of what is much. all right. we've been listening there to the proceedings in the congress for that january 6 committee talking about the evidence as they saw it piling up against the trumpet administration's plans to try and overturn the january to overturn the 2020 elections. let's go to heidi joe castro join us now from washington. d. c. and heidi, i think what we've been seeing so far is that committee piling on the evidence statement off the statement off the statement to show that the trumpet ministration

was told by a number of people that its plans were basically illegals. no basis for that's right, sammy and also this committee. i was trading. how perilously close this country came to following trump's illegal plans to remain in power and how it was in this committee's description. the courage of then vice president mike pans who awaited constitutional catastrophe here that we've been hearing witness after witness saying how pence was dubious of this plan that was presented to him by trumps attorney john eastman. basically that said that the vice president had the right to pick the president of the us and pens apparently thought it was as ridiculous as it sounds. he said there was no constitutional basis for that. so he refused to comply . and as we follow along this hearing for the remainder of the day, we expect to hear how much danger that what pence in,

as the mob here descended on january 6th, wanting chanting that they wanted to hang the vice president for refusing to go along with their plan. all right, thanks heidi. let's bring in now elizabeth angus, she's an associate professor of american studies and political science at george washington university joins us by skype from washington. d. c. good to have you with us. so really the focus on the picture that's emerging. i guess is one of the mike pants, the vice president at that time, saved america from a constitutional crisis. right. is that the picture that's emerging here? i think that's part of it. but i think the prop the heroine is going to be down said a little bit more as the role of trumping some of his advisors start to come into clear focus. so yeah, pen did not do something that was patently illegal. but what we also see is like

the hearing on tuesday, where we see trump wanting to claim that the election was stolen from him. and we see his lawyers, his campaign manager, his family, saying that the election with legitimate. and instead we see trump turning to rudy . giuliani, apparently drunk at the night of the election, telling him that you like what's going on in the pseudo listen to. we're seeing a similar dynamic here today where we have trump, campaign managers and lawyer telling him that mike pence cannot overturn the selection. he could not choose not to certify the election itself and then installed trunk as, as president trump disregard everybody. and once again turns to what kind of crap pot thinker here is. john eastman who's telling him you know that no, the constitution will allow that even though we hear, you know, constitutional scholars and judges saying this is not the case. and trump chooses

to believe that people who are most on the fringes and most outlandish in his circle in order to justify his desire to overthrow the election. so alternately the picture that's emerging, his step one is look mike pants and every and everyone associated with him was saying this is not on. but ultimately, where this is feeding to is the idea that donald trump pushed for something that he was told by everyone not just like pants. like you said, we heard testimony there from eric cushman, the former white house lawyer, former campaign manager, that he went to head, trying to do something that the overwhelming majority of people within is, administration told him, don't go that it's not right. is that where we're going? i think that's exactly right. i think that's part of what we're seeing be hearing show us. we've been getting bits and pieces of this information and we've been hearing some aspect of it over the last year. so it's information through. but what

we're seeing now is the committee actually creating a whole narrative about how trump knew all of the big, you know, the big lie was itself a lie that even people within his administration and his allies were telling him that. and that he continued to press ahead with lying up that the election was stolen from him like that my pen could, you know, couldn't hand him the election. and then when pen did refused to do so. in part because he had absolutely no legal standing to, to do to, to have the election to donald trump that when we the trump i think and where we're here will go. we see trump supporting the claims of the writers that they are going to have my hence, as we already know from earlier in the hearing, you know, trump said that if they have pets, that wouldn't be a bad thing. so trumpet, actively going this violence when people are standing in his way of his desire to engineer this kill. alright, thanks so much for your thoughts and analysis on that. all

right, let's bring you some breaking news down investigation by al jazeera has exclusively obtained an image of the bullet used to kill this networks. journalist sharing a block clay, showing your call was shown in the head by israeli forces while on assignment in jeanine, members of the community have condemned to killing and are continuing to call for investigation. asset bike begins on coverage. the remains of the bullet that kills journalists sharina obliquely. this image is being broadcast for the 1st time and shows the type of ammunition used to kill the veteran al jazeera journalist in the occupied west bank last month. according to experts, the green tip bullet is capable of piercing armor and is used in a m full rifle. when we simulated the green tip bullet using 3 d models and according to ballistic and forensic experts, the munition that ended sharon's life was a 5.56 millimeter caliber. the bullet was 1st designed and manufactured in the

united states. according to the palestinian prosecutor's office and the autopsy report, the bullet entered the lower part of sharon's head over, ricocheted off her helmet and lodged itself in her head. this m for and this m univision is used by the israeli army. and if you are just gone through google, you will find one of the dead guns which used by the israeli as rainy. got no army as in for gold and for it's available and it is used it is used by the eunice general fires also believes when using such a bullet, the intention is clear when any soldier used that he used that for afford a definite target. you want to hand wanted kill, we have used 3 d models to identify the types of weapons is ready. soldiers were

using in this video. we found it was a m for rifle. the type of gun that uses 5.56 caliber, bullets. open source data supports the fact the israeli special unit accused of shooting sharing uses this type of weapon used in a non combat situation. fight by the israeli army at clearly identifiable journalist doing her job. justice assuring is yet to be delivered. accountability, still not taken place. questions remain unanswered, including if an order was given to kill her. why was she shot despite been clearly marked as a journalist and posed no threat? what made an israeli soldier target her from such a short range? all of this is further reason why the palestinian authority and al jazeera media network have demanded an independent investigation into the killing of sharing

a black. yeah, i said bake i 0. all right. joining us now from tel aviv is already given t. he's the advocacy director at breaking the silence. that's a group of former soldiers, if served in the israeli military that want to speak out about the reality of what they see is the these re actions in the occupied territories. thank you for joining us. just explain to view, so they have an idea of who you are, what your background is. now understand of course, you will not directly involved in the events of that day. and, you know, obviously the killing of shooting barclays. but i want to ask you, in general, through your experience, you've been a sold, you've been a military man. is this type of bullet 5.56? is that something commonly used by israeli forces? know something 1st of all then thank you for having me and i really amanda and everyone else who continue to dive deep into this incident. it is so important for

anyone who wants to keep human rights and protect the rights im yeah. for a west to look yes, this bullet very, very bone good inside the bullet that most soldiers dying service em. but if i may, i me look at the broader picture. right. i think that the, this investigation is extremely important. but we also have to remember that these kind of incidents happen on the weekly basis, right? but it's important for you mentioned it as i inside the name of the a 2 weeks ago, 14 year old also. and there is less and talking about it. right. and i think we should look into the healing of siri and a 100 percent, but also remember that healing? it is something that happened on a weekly basis. and most of them go, i noticed okay, i'm, i'm going to get to that. but if you bear with me for him for

a moment before we broaden the out, i want to ask you a few more questions about this bullet. this is an armor piercing bullet, right? what typically would you, not you personally, what typically would an israeli soldier use an armor piercing bullet fall? when i guess the people wearing armor body armor? in the occupied territories, i was ready forces and journalists, right that those the people who typically where body on m. yeah. after the local producers, we're not expertly exactly what the specific so i don't feel comfortable answering not specific question, but it's not that our sure. sure. sure, i don't want to put you in a situation. we have to speculate them. you can tell us you are, you are talking just generally that about the targeting of since civilian palestinians. tell us about instances, you know,

people listening to this interview is this something that your group has documented and seen and experienced how routine is that? what kind of instructions are issued to soldiers? in terms of how careful they should be to avoid civilian casualties when they are operating in the occupied territories. look, i think we, we have to remember that there is a really big difference in order is that we receive a whole turns in what eventually happens on the ground. what matters, i, the soldier and we are in all of our suppliers receive a very clear and a rule of engagement who will allow the open fire are what are the right justification for that and so forth. but eventually, when we see the missions taking place, yeah, when we rule of people with daily invade policy, now cities and towns in walls, these orders, in many,

many cases are not even close to people. and i think the thing that we have to remember here to look at is not well, if either simple as seniors are you, this is the always justifies, always justify. there is no accountability in the military for a killing of innocent people. and this is why the difference between the order is even which if you go, if i will now despite you all the order, it sounds reasonable. if the problem is not that the problem is the fact that we are a standing soldier for 55 years to invade, in places for the 1000000 people. so of course, if you will be, you'll have it and you have a seen a pattern of that happening. if you know your group, have you documented a pattern of the rules, protecting civilian life, being ignored,

systematically in the occupied territories and present, we have heard it as someone is from a 100 of those years. we have the incident of our happening right. let's take the depends on the got offense in, in march may 2018 by 16 people in one day on our yeah, we are doing of children on violence brought this doesn't of the money about how the orders are want to see what happens when the wrong different thing, and in the end the system doesn't really care or try to improve because, you know, i saw it because there isn't any way to go by millions of people in the military force they, they're holding doesn't bounce without giving you. and the fact that the sad fact is that this is the whole doesn't really care about who has been, you know, right. ok, i want to pick you up on something was very interesting. you mentioned, you said we've got the testimony of a 100 soldiers who say that what happens to,

to those guys. basically that's what happens in the testimony after there has been you know, a deliberate violation of rules that lead to the loss of civilian life. take us through the process. is there any investigation? does anybody question you? so anybody say, you know, how did that happen? how did you kill us? as you said, there's a lot on what or is it just everybody knows and keeps i what, what actually happens as a matter of process? yeah. it's just going to, we have over $1300.00 fires. you know, that's the mom is all around it. and lou eventually the lives of we speak to the more you know, some of them about majority of them were part of the missions. and some of them were the actual actors of the b, m. you know,

human rights violation. but in the end, and this goes back to the investigation of siri and also the system understand now the patient, the military israel, our country, understands that if we really look into all these cases, it will all go back to the right. and this is why the system is verify from actually conducting investigation by the soldier that he's 19 when the, when you want me to go and receive the mission to enter the city of janine. yeah. if you any. and he's faced with violence, it's basically like modern dimension and ends up, you know, but it's the vast majority of these cases will be because the system sent him to do that. not because he was saying that the best against them, basically nobody questions. and when they come back, nobody investigate. yeah. no,

i was investigating any really, you know, or really investigating any. when we see investigations of similar case, right. it will only be only be if there is a very clear recommendation incident. yeah, very clear. i still. and even then there will be no accountability. there might be some disciplinary punishment. you know. so if you were to go a soldier, a healing, it was there things beyond the center. hebron and who was lying on the ground after after stopping it. others older and he thought, i mean did clear video of healing of someone with north brennan all in the stores, or is it 8 months in military prison? yeah. so imagine what happens. well, the soldiers do all to all the different in all the different incidents of healing of both of them. but it's been that are not documented,

which is very clearly understand that we cannot investigate because every investigation will end up with the real blame. and the real blame is in the side of us, people who are, who, by the policy of birth is that people will die as long as we do the bait normals. ok, thank you very much for talking to us already give us he, they're very important to shed light on an issue which is important for the human rights of palestinians as well as israelis to live in peace and respect. thank you so much. thank you very much. so me let's take a look at what's happened since sharon was killed by israeli forces. she was shot dead while reporting from the jenin refugee camp in the occupied westbank hours after her death israeli government began circulating video suggesting she was likely shot by a palestinian fighter. but it later changed that account saying it's possible it

soldiers may have killed her palestinian president mahard our boss rejected the proposal for a joint investigation with israel citing a lack of trust. so aly forces attacked mourners at a funeral. may 13th israel has yet to make an investigation into the incident. public media outlets associated press and cnn announced their own investigations that found a barclay was likely killed by israeli fire. a palestinian authority prob, found a barclay was deliberately killed vice ready forces. on the same day, al jazeera said it would file a case with the i c. c. and on june, the 9th, the palestinian foreign minister took the results of its investigation to the i. c . c, live now to in the day abraham in ramallah, in the occupied west by look on a reaction of people are, are we seeing there to leave? what the latest information that's come out about this incident?

let's point out i me that people from day one said that they knew that the bullet that killed shaheen came from an israeli soldier. the witnesses that we've heard, the videos that we've seen, people shot at the janine refugee camp, showing that there were no paris tinian fighters around should. in that time they know that this one has been muddying the waters. we've seen several investigations . as you mentioned there, we've seen also the report by the palestinian prosecution, and now we have more evidence al jazeera sharing pictures of the bullet that killed shaheen. so for palestinians, they know what happened. they won the world now to pay attention. we're still hearing the u. s saying that they want to con, conclusive, transparent investigation. but what people want now is accountability is justice ford, shitting a blackline. we are standing here in her office and i'm joined now by our guest

solid jazzy. he's a human rights defender. what now after we seen all of these investigations, we've already been seeing witnesses accounts. now, is it a shared the picture of the ballot? what next? so the pictures critically. the facts are well established, as he said by multiple investigations by a number of well respected organizations, a da 0, cnn associate press spelling carts and others. now there's another layer of this evidence of the bullets. what we need to happen is move from seeking for the facts to be uncovered because they are uncovered to criminal prosecution. we want that soldier, the fired that bullet to be named and brought to justice. we want those who gave him the order to be named and be brought to justice. the u. s. should and the support chrissy and of the standards when it comes to his run and really take action on ensuring that israel is held accountable for what is a crime,

a war crime, and consist of a knockout territory targeting a journalist like this is a war crime that is happening within a context of a larger crime. that is the crime against humanity of apartheid. we hope that this is a turning point, that now we turn from a displays of hypocrisy and those standards to actually holding israel to the same standards that others will violate. international law was systematically violated bryson commit crimes, war crimes are crunching against humanity. are held to account. we know that this is not the 1st case. sharon wasn't the 1st victim. unfortunately, she won't be the last. i know that palestinians hope for accountability from your experience working here i'm from your colleagues. g. think we're gonna get to a place where there is justice for chatting about whether we must believe that um and there are opportunities. we have an open investigation by the office of the prosecutor of lacy see he must take immediate action. he must show that his office

is consistent. that believes in the rule of law that holds everybody to the same standards and really move is similar way that he's moving. for example, in the case of russia, an open investigation into a war crime that is the targeting an assassination of a journalist and not by 3rd stories, but also the larger context of the crime against your market for pipeline. we also have universal jurisdiction, which is when countries open their legal system to be able to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity. a number of these countries exist in europe, in africa and asia elsewhere. now, prosecutors in these countries can bring cases to the courts in this specific incidence. and this is very important because we have facts that are well established today. we have an additional layer of evidence made public. we know that this evidence is with the pulse of authority. now it's been made public thanks al jazeera, so prosecutors in different countries can move to end this in community of israel. thirdly, and most importantly, we must all act towards ensuring that israel is sanctioned. shaheen is not the 1st

by the sinner, jonesville killed. there are more than $55.00 journalists since 2 thousands a year, 2000 that have been killed. we saw another journalist killed after chevy in was assassinated, but also the violations that joined us in human rights. defenders at face is not only unlawful killings this arbitrary detention. there's prevention of carrying out the work group, preventing people from traveling, et cetera. this is all part of the system of oppression on domination. that is apartheid. very important to understand the skilling in this context. this is a killing in a context of a crime against humanity. and it was very clear then with our talk on the funeral. a, today i was at the you an event where we heard south africa's a minister of foreign affairs melon de pondered, speak about shipping, scaling, speak about data on the funeral as saying how this is very reminiscent of apartheid in south africa and calling on people on officials on ambassadors on foreign or on

states to really take action to and israel, impunity. we'll hope that the investigation accountability for shipping scaling is our turning point here. so we talked about facts and we are showing and saying how many investigations were there? the picture of the bullet with palestinians have been saying from day one witnesses al jazeera producer, as somebody who was shot while he was with city in said it was clear that is really, is an israeli soldiers, were the one who killed her. what more do we need to get the world to believe how things do they have agency? we need the world to stop, but it's not the standards on hypocrisy, which is coming more and more clear by the day and really if they are interested in their own. a rule based system in the international order is based on international law accountability for all human rights equality to really take action on this because not taking action when it comes to israel is not only, of course,

affecting millions of pumpkins or suffering crimes on daily basis but really, undermining the whole international system. so it is in the interest of everybody, particularly western countries to really take action and ensure that accountability for shaheen is a turning point from so as was impunity. and you mentioned western countries. how did you view western media and media and generals coverage when it comes to citizens killing? it was disappointing and 1st, but i think they had to call a catch up to this. you know, we've seen the investigations by the cnn and the associate press, which were very important. they clarified the picture, they really confirmed the fucked up on a stimulus. and from day one we helped us and jonas come out and give their witness accounts. or we had various evidence that was coming from palestine is unfortunately, you know, it is when than western media. when mr. fisher's, when mr. figures a common saying the same things that he guessed credibility, fine, you know, but now we have this picture of journalist being targeted by israeli forces

engineer on that day that are getting lot to the killing of a prominent miss trevino barkley. this is a war crime, it is a part of a crime against humanity of apartheid. we hope that this now is a turning point for when comes as a community. we hope so to follow jazzy human rights defender. thank you for joining us here. at alger 0, we are in shootings office and people keep saying that she was the voice of truth. she was someone you would go to to tell you what's happening. and let me, sammy leave you with a word. i've read from a palestinian brighter, named about the here. he says that shitty was one of the voices that carried the palestinian boys to the world. when the, when the people over the world didn't hear much about what's going on in palestine . now he says the people have heard so much too much and shooting was a part of that too. now what is the world going to do now?

this is the question. that is the question today. thank you so much and i brought him from him oliver. the u. s. his response to shoot in a box is killing be involving last week us secretary of state antony blinking was challenged about america's position. i deplore the loss of serene. she was a remarkable journalist, an american citizen, as you will know. and there too. we are determined to follow the facts and get to the truth of what happened. i know they've not yet, but know they've, i'm sorry with respect they've not yet been established for looking for they've not that we are looking for an independent credible investigation. when that investigation happens, we will follow the facts wherever they lead it's, it's straightforward is that that is not yet happened. but it's something that we very much want to see happens. i spring and now phyllis spanish, she's a fellow at the institute for policy studies joined us now by skype from washington dc. good. have you with us. so i think you may have heard that the secretary of

state thing we want an independent investigation is the biden administration, though, really using its influences, leverage over the killing of a us citizen, to really pursue and secure an independent investigation. not at all to me. i think that we can be very clear about this notion that what secretary of state lincoln claim that we want to follow the facts. we want a independent, incredible investigation, means we want israel to give something that we can say is independence. incredible . we know the or the context here very much like the context that he, josie, was indicating there is a context not only for the israeli pattern and practice of killing journalists, which we've seen over decades. but we're also seeing a pattern that goes back very far of the united states being complicit in this level of refusing accountability in allowing impunity for these

killings to go on without any accountability being. let me jump in. what is the evidence for that complicity that you're talking about for the well, the complicity can start. we have many places to start, but we could start with the provision of the, the weapons. it's quite likely that the both the, the, the, the rifle that was used and the bullet that was used came from manufacturers in the united states. the united states pays for 20 percent of israel's a military budget. so it makes us complicit in what that military does. we have a law in this country, even putting aside the international law questions that solid and others have have referenced just now. there is a u. s. law known as the lay he act, that says explicitly that the united states may not provide any weapons, any training, any military support to any unit of any military, anywhere in the world. that has carried out

a gross violation of human rights. the killing of sharina was a gross violation of human rights. the united states needs to start just for starters, to investigate on its own, whether the late he law was violated by the unit of israeli soldiers. whether or not we know the name of the individual israelis claim they know it, but we don't know it yet. but we know that they are aware which units were deployed to the janine refugee camp on that day. were those units using weapons or bullets that were provided by the united states? that's the 1st question. if so, that has to be cut off immediately. that could be one way of getting out from under this kind of long standing support for impunity. there's other things that the united states can and the, what the, by the administration in my view should do. they could invoke the la he act. they could investigate the question of us weapons. they could also announced that they

will no longer carry out the policy of attacking and isolating. and in the, in the trump years actually imposing sanctions on the international criminal court . that instead they will support the work of the international court. the u. s. as in, we heard it again just now from anthony blinking, that we need an independent and credible investigation. well, the washington post just is now added to the a p and to cnn, as well as al jazeera, who have been carrying out these investigations. they are all consistent, they are all credible. they are all independent. who is the united states asking for now to investigate this notion of saying, as the unfortunately, the editorial board of the washington post would not even accept its own journalist's report. on what happened they said, well this is what the journalist said, and we think this is true. but we also think that there really can't be an independent investigation. and so therefore,

the palestinians should give up the access to the, the bullet that was used, give that to the israelis for their testing. and that would make it somehow credible. they are not saying, for example, that the israelis should give up the rifle to the palestinian investigators so they could carry out that investigation. you know, so this notion of israeli infallibility, extends in the united states beyond just the government to other powerful forces including certainly members of congress, but also some of the mainstream media. which is very disappointing when the, the editorial board of a noted newspaper like the washington post, actually contradicts its own journalists for this kind of a claim. so we have a lot of work to do here. this is all about political will. and this is a question of now, what can the biden administration do to reverse the situation? right, right. all right, thanks so much for the spanish that. thank you. i international and palestinian

media groups in april submitted a formal complaint to the international criminal court, accusing israel of war crimes against journalists. the committee to protect journalists says 20 full journalists, not including surely no box. they have been killed in israel and occupied palestine since 2002 other press freedom advocates have reported even high numbers. israel systematically targets journalists, including al jazeera and 2010. it detained several on board, a humanitarian flotilla heading to gaza. nasty israel bomb the building with media offices including al jazeera in the occupied gaza strip. barely a month later is ready forces arrested al jazeera journalist, you've audible daily as she coveted demonstration in the chef rock neighborhood of occupied east jerusalem. joining me now from washington, d. c is, should be fun. so he's the mean

a program coordinator for the committee to protect jan. this good to have us as i read out, there's plenty of statements by journalists, organizations, human rights organizations that talk about the problem of the deliberate targeting is actually the wording they use of journalists. when you look at the, you know, the, the drab of evidence that's coming in. does it scream out to you for the need for this sort of trend to finally stop by a serious investigation. absolutely, and thank you for having me and for all the guess who made clear all the also the ways we can see just. ready but the bottom here is very, you know, for us to see if we have documented at least 19 drones who are killed by the fire. some of them in the waters on vehicles marked as press and 20122014. and some of them were killed also by friday night,

while waiting was away from any threatening situation. 2 of them and 2018. and you just mentioned that, you know, was on last year a year ago was just one of the media organization that is known as media organization. the by that is really are. so clearly we have a problem of going to have p policy that allows this when you follow cases like this, i wonder if you know, is it, do you feel like they could be even if there is not a political will on the part of some countries to cooperate ticket with israel to cooperate with an international investigation. there still are precedence for an

international investigation to be carried out for a special rep told to be appointed. right? yes, this is one of the things that we have the committee have demanded for president biden. to head of any plans to arrive at the region and meet with the official that he can instructed on it. i tried to conduct an investigation separately and independently, even in collaboration with them, but also to work with you in mechanisms and other parts of the human rights councils. and not just in the national criminal court in us, an international role been to this the same way we did was g for example, right? because it was difficult for accountability to establish. all right, thanks so much. sharif man, so that from the committee to protect journalist for joining us and sharing your thoughts on this. thank you. all right,

well just to update you on that the 1st pictures have emerged off that bullet that was used to kill sharing. i walk like you can get more on the story. of course, you head over to our web site, out to sierra dot com. that's it for me from this new to saudi. so i la la la la la la, nationwide is 11. the how do you to visit? well, cancel the admin, philistine bitten from scratch for ya. well, no better for say, yada. can a little sob? is it done? well, i can click the dish out in the cloud. there's topics here that it will sell. thought they're not valuable camilla coffee and like in the past on meghan a on the, in that a fee on the line is like a month to help audi. i mean,

for the stratton law in lincolnshire, for control you. why did i can't even before fucking the book so la, monica, it's great to see. welcome to the cutter economic forum powered by bloomberg. some people say that they said the globalization going on, but i prefer to think of every globalization or accomplish speakers from heads of state to business and policy leaders will discuss involve in technology, education, culture, sustainability, and the impact on the economy. ah, ah.