hello, i'm christian fraser. you're watching the context on bbc news. this is not only a trial over $1.6 billion in dominion�*s lost profit and damages, but this is a trial that has enormous implications for press freedom in the united states. why aren't they investigating november 3rd, a rigged and stolen election? this is an unusual case simply. because so many fox executives actually put their thoughts into e—mails, even- rupert murdoch himself. welcome back. we will be looking ahead this

next hour to tomorrow's blockbuster trial in delaware. fox news defending itself against extensive evidence it told viewers a story of conspiracy and fraud in the 2020 election it knew wasn't true. on the panel to discuss is brian lanza, who was a member of donald trump's transition team, and the former labour leader kesia dugdale, now director of thejohn smith centre in glasgow. in other trump—related news, senior republicans have been in manhattan today to investigate the district attorney alvin bragg's performance on violent crime. that would be the same alvin bragg who two weeks ago indicted donald trump. we will get the thoughts of our panel on that, and maybe we will test them on their maths. rishi sunak announced today he is setting up a review to tackle the anti—maths mindset. notjust a uk problem — us schools have experienced a recent fall in standards, too. but let's begin in delaware. in his summaryjudgment issued before this trial gets under way tomorrow, the judge said it was crystal clear none of the statements fox news

were pushing in 2020 about dominion�*s electronic voting machine were true. how does he know that? well, he knows because there are hundreds of whatsapp messages exchanged between the main fox anchors that proves they all knew it was bogus. in a note to his producer, tucker carlson wrote, "sidney powell is lying." he referred to her as an "unguided missile", "dangerous as hell". hannity wrote of donald trump in the weeks following the election, "he's acting like an insane person." even billionaire fox owner rupert murdoch was dismissive of the former president's claims, calling it "really crazy stuff". and yet they pushed these stories of election fraud because it sat well with the viewers. so the question the i2—person jury will be asked to answer in this trial is this — did fox news air wild claims about dominion�*s purported involvement in a conspiracy knowing that they were lies? fox news had wanted to argue that the newsworthiness of trump's election claims absolved it

of any liability. the judge said he would not allow that defence. michelle fleury has been to the delaware court where the proceedings were meant to take place today. many of us showed up at the delaware courthouse for the high—stakes defamation trial against fox news that was due to start on monday, but was abruptly pushed back on sunday evening with no explanation. speaking in court earlier, judge eric davis said that this wasn't unusual and that things happen, especially when you're talking about a six—week trial. that hasn't stopped speculation of a potential out—of—court settlement, with one of the newspapers owned by rupert murdoch, the wall streetjournal, reporting on sunday night that fox was pushing for a deal to avoid trial. now, during the four—minute hearing, there was no mention of settlement talks, and lawyers for both parties did not comment. at its heart, this case is about whether or not fox news defamed dominion by spreading false claims that the voting technology

company rigged the 2020 us election against then—president donald trump. the trial is being seen as a test not only of press freedom, but also an attempt to hold accountable those who spread misinformation about the 2020 us presidential election. it could also have implications for how political coverage moves forward when we're talking about the 2024 elections. if the trial goes forward as planned tomorrow, media tycoon rupert murdoch at some point may be compelled to testify in person. and won't that be a thing to watch? i'm joined byjerry goldfeder, who served as special counsel to former new york attorney general andrew cuomo. he practices law in manhattan and specialises in election and campaign finance law. also by randall eliason, who spent 12 years as an assistant us attorney for the district of columbia and is currently white

collar crime professor at george washington university law school. the panel also with us let's get into it. let's start with you, randall. we were told it was to late today, was supposed to open today but were told they were delaying because fox might want to settle. is that possible right up to the trial beginning tomorrow?— that possible right up to the trial beginning tomorrow? yeah, and in fact it's not — beginning tomorrow? yeah, and in fact it's not that _ beginning tomorrow? yeah, and in fact it's not that unusual _ beginning tomorrow? yeah, and in fact it's not that unusual to - beginning tomorrow? yeah, and in fact it's not that unusual to have . fact it's not that unusual to have a settlement — fact it's not that unusual to have a settlement on the eve of trial. parties— settlement on the eve of trial. parties kind of rent of room for any other_ parties kind of rent of room for any other manoeuvring and the rubber is bound to _ other manoeuvring and the rubber is bound to hit — other manoeuvring and the rubber is bound to hit the road tomorrow and that creates sometimes a lot of pressure — that creates sometimes a lot of pressure for a settlement. why don't ou tell pressure for a settlement. why don't you tell us. — pressure for a settlement. why don't you tell us. jerry. — pressure for a settlement. why don't you tell us, jerry, what _ pressure for a settlement. why don't you tell us, jerry, what the _ pressure for a settlement. why don't you tell us, jerry, what the test - pressure for a settlement. why don't you tell us, jerry, what the test is i you tell us, jerry, what the test is that a civil case like this for defamation?— that a civil case like this for defamation? ~ ~ , ., defamation? well, i think first of all i aaree defamation? well, i think first of all i agree with _ defamation? well, i think first of all i agree with randall— defamation? well, i think first of all i agree with randall that - defamation? well, i think first of all i agree with randall that thisl all i agree with randall that this case can— all i agree with randall that this case can be _ all i agree with randall that this case can be settled _ all i agree with randall that this case can be settled today - all i agree with randall that this case can be settled today or- case can be settled today or tomorrow _

case can be settled today or tomorrow. as _ case can be settled today or tomorrow. as a matter- case can be settled today or. tomorrow. as a matter of fact it could _ tomorrow. as a matter of fact it could be settled _ tomorrow. as a matter of fact it could be settled at the - tomorrow. as a matter of fact it| could be settled at the trial, and that's_ could be settled at the trial, and that's not so_ could be settled at the trial, and that's not so unusual. _ could be settled at the trial, and that's not so unusual. i- could be settled at the trial, and that's not so unusual. i think- could be settled at the trial, and i that's not so unusual. i think that fox wants — that's not so unusual. i think that fox wants to— that's not so unusual. i think that fox wants to spirits _ that's not so unusual. i think that fox wants to spirits of _ that's not so unusual. i think that fox wants to spirits of the - that's not so unusual. i think that| fox wants to spirits of the ordeal, the embarrassment _ fox wants to spirits of the ordeal, the embarrassment of— fox wants to spirits of the ordeal, the embarrassment of having - the embarrassment of having testimony— the embarrassment of having testimony where _ the embarrassment of having testimony where they- the embarrassment of having testimony where they have . the embarrassment of having - testimony where they have criticised the former— testimony where they have criticised the former president _ testimony where they have criticised the former president and _ testimony where they have criticised the former president and they- testimony where they have criticised the former president and they have i the former president and they have demonstrated — the former president and they have demonstrated their— the former president and they have demonstrated their intention - the former president and they have demonstrated their intention to - the former president and they have demonstrated their intention to lie | demonstrated their intention to lie to the _ demonstrated their intention to lie to the viewers _ demonstrated their intention to lie to the viewers in _ demonstrated their intention to lie to the viewers in order— demonstrated their intention to lie to the viewers in order to - demonstrated their intention to lie to the viewers in order to make . demonstrated their intention to lie i to the viewers in order to make sure that the viewers _ to the viewers in order to make sure that the viewers were _ to the viewers in order to make sure that the viewers were happy - to the viewers in order to make sure that the viewers were happy with - that the viewers were happy with what _ that the viewers were happy with what they — that the viewers were happy with what they were _ that the viewers were happy with what they were reporting. - that the viewers were happy with what they were reporting. so - that the viewers were happy with what they were reporting. sol. that the viewers were happy with i what they were reporting. so i think that it's _ what they were reporting. so i think that it's totally _ what they were reporting. so i think that it's totally possible _ what they were reporting. so i think that it's totally possible for- that it's totally possible for this to be settled _ that it's totally possible for this to be settled before _ that it's totally possible for this to be settled before the - that it's totally possible for this to be settled before the trial. to be settled before the trial starts — to be settled before the trial starts and _ to be settled before the trial starts and even _ to be settled before the trial starts and even during - to be settled before the trial starts and even during the l to be settled before the trial. starts and even during the trial. and i_ starts and even during the trial. and i think— starts and even during the trial. and i think we _ starts and even during the trial. and i think we ought _ starts and even during the trial. and i think we ought to - starts and even during the trial. and i think we ought to watch . starts and even during the trial. i and i think we ought to watch for that _ and i think we ought to watch for that. . . , ., that. randall, in the pretrial heafina that. randall, in the pretrial hearing and _ that. randall, in the pretrial hearing and i _ that. randall, in the pretrial hearing and i made - that. randall, in the pretrial| hearing and i made reference that. randall, in the pretrial- hearing and i made reference to it in the introduction, thejudge hearing and i made reference to it in the introduction, the judge said he would not allow fox to use one of its main defences, and that was that the newsworthiness of what donald trump was suggesting, the allegations he was making, the

newsworthiness of that absolve them from liability for defamation. why is it significant that he has ruled that out? i is it significant that he has ruled that out? ~ is it significant that he has ruled that out? ,, ., �* , that out? i think fox's greatest otential that out? i think fox's greatest potential defence was - that out? i think fox's greatest potential defence was always l that out? i think fox's greatest - potential defence was always going to be, _ potential defence was always going to be, look, we were not saying this stuff was _ to be, look, we were not saying this stuff was true. we were merely reporting — stuff was true. we were merely reporting a what others were saying and so _ reporting a what others were saying and so they— reporting a what others were saying and so they were going to try to use that as their— and so they were going to try to use that as their key defence to suggest they are _ that as their key defence to suggest they are not responsible because they are not responsible because they are — they are not responsible because they are just reporting the news and not making — they are just reporting the news and not making the allegations themselves. but i think the evidence has come _ themselves. but i think the evidence has come out before trial has shown that actually lie between those two things _ that actually lie between those two things really was quite blurred and it did _ things really was quite blurred and it did appear that fox was actually promoting these theories themselves what think that's what they are very nervous _ what think that's what they are very nervous going forward about this trial and — nervous going forward about this trial and what kind of evidence is going _ trial and what kind of evidence is going to — trial and what kind of evidence is going to come out. and trial and what kind of evidence is going to come out.— going to come out. and yet, the 'udue going to come out. and yet, the judge also _ going to come out. and yet, the judge also denied _ going to come out. and yet, the judge also denied a _ going to come out. and yet, the judge also denied a motion - going to come out. and yet, the judge also denied a motion that| judge also denied a motion that dominion brought that would've limited how fox lawyers invoke the first amendment, which i suppose does leave the network some wiggle

room to argue that the constitution shields and from liability. hat iii shields and from liability. not if the were shields and from liability. not if they were intentionally - shields and from liability. not if they were intentionally lying - shields and from liability. not if they were intentionally lying about what they— they were intentionally lying about what they were _ they were intentionally lying about what they were reporting, - they were intentionally lying about what they were reporting, and - they were intentionally lying about what they were reporting, and i. what they were reporting, and i think— what they were reporting, and i think the — what they were reporting, and i think the evidence... _ what they were reporting, and i think the evidence... we - what they were reporting, and i think the evidence... we have i what they were reporting, and i- think the evidence... we have seen some _ think the evidence... we have seen some of— think the evidence... we have seen some of the — think the evidence... we have seen some of the evidence _ think the evidence... we have seen some of the evidence but _ think the evidence... we have seen some of the evidence but i - think the evidence... we have seen some of the evidence but i think. think the evidence... we have seenl some of the evidence but i think the evidence will— some of the evidence but i think the evidence will come out _ some of the evidence but i think the evidence will come out to _ evidence will come out to demonstrate _ evidence will come out to demonstrate that- evidence will come out to demonstrate that they i evidence will come out to . demonstrate that they were evidence will come out to - demonstrate that they were lying, they knew — demonstrate that they were lying, they knew they _ demonstrate that they were lying, they knew they were _ demonstrate that they were lying, they knew they were and - demonstrate that they were lying, they knew they were and that's i demonstrate that they were lying, i they knew they were and that's not fitted _ they knew they were and that's not fitted iry— they knew they were and that's not fitted by the — they knew they were and that's not fitted by the first _ they knew they were and that's not fitted by the first amendment - they knew they were and that's not fitted by the first amendment in i fitted by the first amendment in this area — fitted by the first amendment in this area of— fitted by the first amendment in this area of the _ fitted by the first amendment in this area of the law. _ fitted by the first amendment in this area of the law.— fitted by the first amendment in this area of the law. brian, this is a no sin this area of the law. brian, this is a no spin zone. — this area of the law. brian, this is a no spin zone, the _ this area of the law. brian, this is a no spin zone, the court - this area of the law. brian, this is a no spin zone, the court room, l this area of the law. brian, this is. a no spin zone, the court room, no good for you, not a place to be so put on the facts out there and any deception is tricky prohibited. does this then have implications for donald trump's campaign? listen, i would say it— donald trump's campaign? listen, i would say it becomes _ donald trump's campaign? listen, i would say it becomes a _ donald trump's campaign? listen, i would say it becomes a bit - donald trump's campaign? listen, i would say it becomes a bit difficult. would say it becomes a bit difficult to trial... is would say it becomes a bit difficult to trial... , . ., would say it becomes a bit difficult to trial... , ., ., y., to trial... is that what you call it? he to trial. .. is that what you call it? he is— to trial... is that what you call it? he is always _ to trial... is that what you call it? he is always shown - to trial... is that what you call it? he is always shown to - to trial... is that what you call - it? he is always shown to measure time that he _ it? he is always shown to measure time that he knows _ it? he is always shown to measure time that he knows how _ it? he is always shown to measure time that he knows how to - it? he is always shown to measure time that he knows how to handle| time that he knows how to handle these types of media productions outside of forming public opinion and creating a narrative of him

being some type of victim and so i think anything will change in that process other than just the rhetoric that he tries to incite violence, i think thejudge will that he tries to incite violence, i think the judge will restrain that behaviour. but think the judge will restrain that behaviour. �* , ~ , think the judge will restrain that behaviour. , ,, , ., ., behaviour. but it is likely that fox viewers who _ behaviour. but it is likely that fox viewers who are _ behaviour. but it is likely that fox viewers who are the _ behaviour. but it is likely that fox viewers who are the centre - behaviour. but it is likely that fox viewers who are the centre of- behaviour. but it is likely that fox viewers who are the centre of all. viewers who are the centre of all the decisions that were taken here will be watching and they will be served up what their favourite anchors think about donald trump i had of a primary campaign. i anchors think about donald trump i had of a primary campaign.- had of a primary campaign. i don't watch a lot — had of a primary campaign. i don't watch a lot of— had of a primary campaign. i don't watch a lot of fox _ had of a primary campaign. i don't watch a lot of fox that _ had of a primary campaign. i don't watch a lot of fox that i've - had of a primary campaign. i don't watch a lot of fox that i've read i had of a primary campaign. i don't watch a lot of fox that i've read a | watch a lot of fox that i've read a lot about the coverage and they actually don't show the hearing that much so i would not be surprised if a lot of fox viewers will be ignorant to the fact that is taking place, even if they settle they will be ignorant to the settlement if the coverage does not exist for it. so i'm not here advocating one way or the other but i think that fox is donein the other but i think that fox is done in the viewers have done a good job of narrowing into what fox is covering and they are not covering this trial. ., ., ., , this trial. you got me there as i overlooked _ this trial. you got me there as i overlooked the _ this trial. you got me there as i overlooked the fact _ this trial. you got me there as i overlooked the fact that - this trial. you got me there as i overlooked the fact that foss i this trial. you got me there as i - overlooked the fact that foss would not carry it live or any reporting from it, probably right there. why

do you think uk viewers to be interested in how rupert murdoch has managed fox news? llrlul’eiiii. interested in how rupert murdoch has managed fox news?— managed fox news? well, first of i think they're _ managed fox news? well, first of i think they're interesting _ managed fox news? well, first of i think they're interesting because i think they're interesting because this is— think they're interesting because this is a — think they're interesting because this is a david versus goliath type story— this is a david versus goliath type story and — this is a david versus goliath type story and it — this is a david versus goliath type story and it all stems around donald trump _ story and it all stems around donald trump saying to the american people, look, _ trump saying to the american people, look. these _ trump saying to the american people, look, these voting machines that you are using, _ look, these voting machines that you are using, they were used by hugo chavez— are using, they were used by hugo chavez and ms. miller to ensure he would never lose an election ever again— would never lose an election ever again and — would never lose an election ever again and the kind of anti—politics misinformation that fed into the american — misinformation that fed into the american psyche that has led to the dispute _ american psyche that has led to the dispute over the election results will he _ dispute over the election results will be seen. it was about the power of rhetoric, — will be seen. it was about the power of rhetoric, the language of politicians use, the degree to which they speak— politicians use, the degree to which they speak the truth, the things that they— they speak the truth, the things that they say can be factually assessed against reality. it's part of the _ assessed against reality. it's part of the polymerisation of politics that we — of the polymerisation of politics that we are seeing come of the good a the _ that we are seeing come of the good a the populace in the world over and it can happen here in the uk as well _ it can happen here in the uk as well so— it can happen here in the uk as well. so that balance between free speech _ well. so that balance between free speech and then when it tips over into misinformation i think is something every country in the trying — something every country in the trying to— something every country in the trying to grapple with at the minute _ trying to grapple with at the minute. �* . trying to grapple with at the minute. . ., , , trying to grapple with at the minute. . . , , ., , trying to grapple with at the minute. �* . , , . , ., �* minute. and that is why many don't want this to —

minute. and that is why many don't want this to be _ minute. and that is why many don't want this to be settled _ minute. and that is why many don't want this to be settled as _ minute. and that is why many don't want this to be settled as i - minute. and that is why many don't want this to be settled as i think . want this to be settled as i think that many might be under some pressure to go ahead with this, might they?— pressure to go ahead with this, miuhtthe ? ., ., , , . might they? there is a lot of public ressure might they? there is a lot of public pressure in — might they? there is a lot of public pressure in some _ might they? there is a lot of public pressure in some circles _ might they? there is a lot of public pressure in some circles to - might they? there is a lot of public pressure in some circles to urge i pressure in some circles to urge them _ pressure in some circles to urge them not — pressure in some circles to urge them not to— pressure in some circles to urge them not to settle _ pressure in some circles to urge them not to settle just - pressure in some circles to urge them not to settle just of- pressure in some circles to urge them not to settle just of this i them not to settle just of this information— them not to settle just of this information will— them not to settle just of this information will get— them not to settle just of this information will get out - them not to settle just of this information will get out there j them not to settle just of this - information will get out there and more _ information will get out there and more of— information will get out there and more of the — information will get out there and more of the world _ information will get out there and more of the world and _ information will get out there and more of the world and more - information will get out there and more of the world and more the l more of the world and more the country— more of the world and more the country will _ more of the world and more the country will know— more of the world and more the country will know exactly - more of the world and more the country will know exactly what i more of the world and more the - country will know exactly what went down _ country will know exactly what went down in _ country will know exactly what went down in fox — country will know exactly what went down in fox 0t— country will know exactly what went down in fox. of course _ country will know exactly what went down in fox. of course for- country will know exactly what went | down in fox. of course for dominion estate _ down in fox. of course for dominion estate trusiness— down in fox. of course for dominion estate business decision _ down in fox. of course for dominion estate business decision is - down in fox. of course for dominion estate business decision is is - down in fox. of course for dominion estate business decision is is not. estate business decision is is not really— estate business decision is is not really their— estate business decision is is not really theirioh _ estate business decision is is not really theirjob to _ estate business decision is is not really theirjob to make - estate business decision is is not really theirjob to make that - really theirjob to make that lrroader— really theirjob to make that broader political— really theirjob to make that broader political message . really theirjob to make that| broader political message for really theirjob to make that - broader political message for the world _ broader political message for the world and — broader political message for the world and if— broader political message for the world and if they _ broader political message for the world and if they get _ broader political message for the world and if they get a _ broader political message for the| world and if they get a favourable enough _ world and if they get a favourable enough offer. _ world and if they get a favourable enough offer, from _ world and if they get a favourable enough offer, from fox— world and if they get a favourable enough offer, from fox and - world and if they get a favourable enough offer, from fox and the l world and if they get a favourable . enough offer, from fox and the feel of the reputation _ enough offer, from fox and the feel of the reputation has _ enough offer, from fox and the feel of the reputation has been - enough offer, from fox and the feel of the reputation has been restored| of the reputation has been restored and fox— of the reputation has been restored and fox makes— of the reputation has been restored and fox makes an _ of the reputation has been restored and fox makes an apology- of the reputation has been restored and fox makes an apology and - of the reputation has been restoredl and fox makes an apology and gives them _ and fox makes an apology and gives them an— and fox makes an apology and gives them an amount _ and fox makes an apology and gives them an amount of— and fox makes an apology and gives them an amount of money, - and fox makes an apology and gives them an amount of money, at - and fox makes an apology and gives them an amount of money, at that l them an amount of money, at that point _ them an amount of money, at that point is _ them an amount of money, at that point is a _ them an amount of money, at that point is a business _ them an amount of money, at that point is a business decision- them an amount of money, at that| point is a business decision i would expect them — point is a business decision i would expect them to take _ point is a business decision i would expect them to take it. _ point is a business decision i would expect them to take it. find - point is a business decision i would expect them to take it. and they've already said. _ expect them to take it. and they've already said, fox, _ expect them to take it. and they've already said, fox, they _ expect them to take it. and they've already said, fox, they will - expect them to take it. and they've already said, fox, they will appeall already said, fox, they will appeal this audible to the supreme court come up with a b dominion lawyers whosejob it is come up with a b dominion lawyers whose job it is to get the best deal out of this and looking at what's on the table as you say all the weight to the trial i'm making a judgment? just because a lawyer says they are going to take it all way to the us

supreme court does not mean that that's what's going to occur. i think both sides are going to look at this as a business decision and they have different interests obviously. but i think dominion has had his reputation restored. by what has already come out. and i think fox has probably going to want to limit what kind of unfavorable media coverage they are going to get during this trial. so i think randall is right that this is at this point and perhaps during the coming weeks becoming a business decision for both of them. fine coming weeks becoming a business decision for both of them.— decision for both of them. one of those who _ decision for both of them. one of those who supported _ decision for both of them. one of those who supported donald - decision for both of them. one of - those who supported donald trump's claims in the 2020 election... one of those who supported donald trump's claims the 2020 election was stolen is the ohio congressmanjim jordan, now the chair of the house judiciary committee, and today, he took that committee to manhattan to hear evidence about violent assaults. his target, the district attorney alvin bragg, who he accuses

of being soft on crime. he is trying to make a political point that bragg has focused unduly on prosecuting trump while failing to keep the public safe. today's hearing is about the administration ofjustice and keeping communities safe, something that has always been a central focus of the house judiciary committee. 0ur witnesses today have felt the effects of crime up close and personal. they've been victimised by a system that cares more about political correctness than punishing the criminals who've harmed them and harmed their families. at several points today, they were interrupted by anti—trump protesters who were trying to get into the hearing room to have their say. democrats say it is another example of republicans trying to undermine the prosecution of the former president. here's congressman jerry nadler. it is an outrageous abuse of power. it is, to the chairman's favourite term, a weaponisation - of the house judiciary committee. i do not know if mr trump will be found guilty... -

gentleman, suspend. the gallery should refrain from commenting and let the gentleman from new york finish his statement. let me talk to you, jerry comes in to practice law in manhattan was about wonder what you make of a congressional committee coming to new york to investigate whether the district attorney is fully getting to grips with the crime problem in the city. to grips with the crime problem in the ci . , ., ., the city. first of all, full disclosure, _ the city. first of all, full disclosure, i— the city. first of all, full disclosure, i represent. the city. first of all, full- disclosure, i represent jerry the city. first of all, full— disclosure, i represent jerry nadler disclosure, i representjerry nadler is a congressman, and i think this is a congressman, and i think this is not meant to say it's weaponisation is to use a term that does not really get to the heart of the matter. this isjust a... it has absolutely no basis in any kind of justification. the reason i'm at a loss for words is it so outrageous, such an egregious abuse thatjim

jordan and his colleagues are undertaking here. normally republican party in the past has beenin republican party in the past has been in favour of protecting law enforcement and supporting law enforcement, and here they are obviously trying to undermine it. and it using the falsity that manhattan is a place of high, great statistics in relation to crime, but in fact new york city is a lot safer thanjimjordan's own in fact new york city is a lot safer than jim jordan's own district and many other districts of the congresspeople on his panel. this is just a show in order to try to support donald trump and it's really... it'sjust support donald trump and it's really... it's just whatjerry nadler is saying, is abusive. i nadler is saying, is abusive. i wonder if the two stories are because this seems to shine a light on what you might call the governing

body fox news problem. so, yes, it creates headlines today and jim jordan will get all the right headlines from fox news but it runs into problems because you can hardly gripe about violent crime when the same time you are refusing to take any action on gun safety.— any action on gun safety. listen, i'm auoin any action on gun safety. listen, l'm going will — any action on gun safety. listen, i'm going will disagree _ any action on gun safety. listen, i'm going will disagree because i j i'm going will disagree because i think— i'm going will disagree because i think this — i'm going will disagree because i think this is a weaponisation of this committee in their response to a weaponisation of the manhattan district _ a weaponisation of the manhattan district attorney. and then there is going _ district attorney. and then there is going to _ district attorney. and then there is going to be another response to this is even _ going to be another response to this is even would be more radical. we are on— is even would be more radical. we are on a _ is even would be more radical. we are on a sort— is even would be more radical. we are on a sort of vortex who can be more _ are on a sort of vortex who can be more radical— are on a sort of vortex who can be more radical and weapon eyes in government with the da cover the manhattan da crossing a line that even _ manhattan da crossing a line that even democrats that he should not cross _ even democrats that he should not cross and _ even democrats that he should not cross and most democrats or a lot of them _ cross and most democrats or a lot of them saying — cross and most democrats or a lot of them saying he is stretching a lot of them saying he is stretching the law to _ of them saying he is stretching the law to find — of them saying he is stretching the law to find a felony when it's clearly — law to find a felony when it's clearly a _ law to find a felony when it's clearly a misdemeanor that he has no authority over. listen, this is the vortex— authority over. listen, this is the vortex that — authority over. listen, this is the vortex that we are in and there is no off— vortex that we are in and there is no off ramp — vortex that we are in and there is no off ramp and i would not be surprised at some point if this committee rolls out a criminal

referral— committee rolls out a criminal referral of— committee rolls out a criminal referral of hunter biden because weaponisation of government entities has been _ weaponisation of government entities has been happening for a long time and this— has been happening for a long time and this is— has been happening for a long time and this isjust an has been happening for a long time and this is just an accelerated path that we _ and this is just an accelerated path that we are — and this is just an accelerated path that we are on. and this isjust an accelerated path that we are on.— that we are on. certainly it puts the two sides — that we are on. certainly it puts the two sides at _ that we are on. certainly it puts the two sides at odds, - that we are on. certainly it puts the two sides at odds, randall. | that we are on. certainly it puts i the two sides at odds, randall. do you have any sympathy with the arguments put forward? hat you have any sympathy with the arguments put forward? not really, i don't equate — arguments put forward? not really, i don't equate what _ arguments put forward? not really, i don't equate what the _ arguments put forward? not really, i don't equate what the da _ arguments put forward? not really, i don't equate what the da has - arguments put forward? not really, i don't equate what the da has done l don't equate what the da has done with what— don't equate what the da has done with what the — don't equate what the da has done with what the congressman - don't equate what the da has done with what the congressman jordanl don't equate what the da has done i with what the congressman jordan is doing _ with what the congressman jordan is doing and _ with what the congressman jordan is doing and i_ with what the congressman jordan is doing and i think— with what the congressman jordan is doing and i think mr— with what the congressman jordan is doing and i think mr nadler- with what the congressman jordan is doing and i think mr nadler is - doing and i think mr nadler is right — doing and i think mr nadler is right nobody— doing and i think mr nadler is right. nobody should - doing and i think mr nadler is| right. nobody should misstate doing and i think mr nadler is - right. nobody should misstate what is going _ right. nobody should misstate what is going on— right. nobody should misstate what is going on here _ right. nobody should misstate what is going on here as— right. nobody should misstate what is going on here as this _ right. nobody should misstate what is going on here as this is _ right. nobody should misstate what is going on here as this is a - right. nobody should misstate what is going on here as this is a very- is going on here as this is a very much _ is going on here as this is a very much political— is going on here as this is a very much political theatre _ is going on here as this is a very much political theatre and - is going on here as this is a very much political theatre and is- is going on here as this is a very much political theatre and is to. is going on here as this is a very. much political theatre and is to get headlines— much political theatre and is to get headlines and _ much political theatre and is to get headlines and try _ much political theatre and is to get headlines and try to _ much political theatre and is to get headlines and try to help _ much political theatre and is to get headlines and try to help former. headlines and try to help former president — headlines and try to help former president trump _ headlines and try to help former president trump and _ headlines and try to help former president trump and the - headlines and try to help former. president trump and the criminal case _ president trump and the criminal case is _ president trump and the criminal case is they— president trump and the criminal case is they can _ president trump and the criminal case is they can committee - president trump and the criminal case is they can committee from | case is they can committee from congress — case is they can committee from congress to— case is they can committee from congress to he _ case is they can committee from congress to be doing. _ case is they can committee from congress to be doing. it's- congress to be doing. it's interfering _ congress to be doing. it's interfering with— congress to be doing. it's interfering with local- congress to be doing. it's interfering with local law. interfering with local law enforcement _ interfering with local law enforcement was - interfering with local law. enforcement was publicans interfering with local law— enforcement was publicans typically would _ enforcement was publicans typically would he _ enforcement was publicans typically would be strongly— enforcement was publicans typically would be strongly opposed - enforcement was publicans typically would be strongly opposed to. i enforcement was publicans typically would be strongly opposed to. so i would be strongly opposed to. so nobody _ would be strongly opposed to. so nobody should _ would be strongly opposed to. so nobody should mistake _ would be strongly opposed to. so nobody should mistake this - would be strongly opposed to. so nobody should mistake this for. would be strongly opposed to. so nobody should mistake this fora. nobody should mistake this for a serious legislative _ nobody should mistake this for a serious legislative effort. - nobody should mistake this for a serious legislative effort. it's i nobody should mistake this for a serious legislative effort. it's all| serious legislative effort. it's all about— serious legislative effort. it's all about politics _ serious legislative effort. it's all about politics and _ serious legislative effort. it's all about politics and show - serious legislative effort. it's all about politics and show and i serious legislative effort. it's all.

about politics and show and trying to help _ about politics and show and trying to help former— about politics and show and trying to help former president - about politics and show and trying to help former president trump i about politics and show and trying i to help former president trump and members _ to help former president trump and members of— to help former president trump and members of congress _ to help former president trump and members of congress sort - to help former president trump and members of congress sort of - to help former president trump and members of congress sort of acting| members of congress sort of acting as outside — members of congress sort of acting as outside council— members of congress sort of acting as outside council for— members of congress sort of acting as outside council for the _ members of congress sort of acting as outside council for the former. as outside council for the former president— as outside council for the former president trying to _ as outside council for the former president trying to help him i as outside council for the former. president trying to help him again. whatever— president trying to help him again. whatever you _ president trying to help him again. whatever you think— president trying to help him again. whatever you think about - president trying to help him again. whatever you think about the i president trying to help him again. whatever you think about the da, i whatever you think about the da, there is no dispute that there is coordination between aerobic and leadership of the committee and on trip and i wonder what you make of that. ,, , ., , , that. sure but also this is textbook politics- this _ that. sure but also this is textbook politics. this is _ that. sure but also this is textbook politics. this is act _ that. sure but also this is textbook politics. this is act one, _ that. sure but also this is textbook politics. this is act one, scene i that. sure but also this is textbook politics. this is act one, scene one| politics. this is act one, scene one of any attempt to destabilise your opponent would be to move an action like this. it is political theatre and i think it's a good way to describe it and because it is such, is entirely printable and we could almost spell out now what is going to happen in the next few scenes was a but i also think it strategic, so ultimately what stories like this too is the base politics and politicians in the public to look on events like this to conclude they are all the same and playing the same game and i'll add it and that leads to reduced turnout and when turnout is low that benefits republicans and benefit donald trump

in particular. there's a long ball here, too. in particular. there's a long ball here. too-— in particular. there's a long ball here, too. , . ., , here, too. yes commence a good place to leave it with — here, too. yes commence a good place to leave it with your _ here, too. yes commence a good place to leave it with your summary where i to leave it with your summary where we are politically it is probably about right. think you very much indeed, jerry and randall, good to have you on the programme, thank you. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. music. when diaspora unite together, like, it's very important to support each other, to give some hugs, to give some presents for children, like eggs or something. and it's nice because some people have mental problems because of war, and when we unite together, we're getting stronger.

and can you tell me about your headdresses? yeah, usually ukrainian girls, they wear it in some celebrations, in some very important days. and we wear it here because, like, many people in uk never saw something like that. you're live with bbc news. let's look at some of the other stories making headlines today. the compensation scheme for victims of the windrush scandal should be taken away from the home office and given to an independent body, according to a human rights group. the scandal, which unfolded five years ago, affected thousands of british people, mostly of caribbean origin, who arrived in the uk between 1948—1971 and who were wrongly classed as illegal immigrants. human rights watch says many people are facing "unreasonable" bureaucracy as they apply for compensation. the trainer of a horse that died during saturday's grand national has

blamed what he's called "ignorant" protesters for his animal's death. sandy thomson said the delay to the start of the race after animal rights activists entered the track "unsettled" everyone. the group, animal rising, said its actions were "aimed to prevent" the death of horses. introducing the conoronation quiche! it was hand—picked by king charles iii and queen consort camilla and has been declared the coronation's official party food. the quiche is the latest in a long line of official royal snacks. queen elizabeth ii's coronation dish in 1953 was "poulet reine elizabeth", or coronation chicken as it later became known. g7 foreign leaders meeting injapan have issued a statement calling on russia to withdraw all forces and equipment from ukraine immediately and unconditionally. they said russia's "nuclear rhetoric is unacceptable", and they agreed on "reinforcing coordination to prevent third—party weapon supply to russia". china and taiwan was the main issue up for discussion.

the eu foreign policy chief josep borrell said the bloc�*s relationship with china would be determined in the long run by beijing's actions in the taiwan strait. let's talk about a couple of those stories. first of all, we have the g7 in japan stories. first of all, we have the g7 injapan talking about china and ukraine. yet you have sergey lavrov, the russian foreign minister, in brazil and the brazilian president lula saying america needs to stop supply funds for this war and ukraine needs to accept that crimea is lost to russia and i wonder what you make of that and what it says about the position the global is taking. as about the position the global is takina. �* . , , taking. a really interesting development _ taking. a really interesting development to _ taking. a really interesting development to see i taking. a really interesting development to see brazil| taking. a really interesting i development to see brazil take taking. a really interesting - development to see brazil take the stance that it is and trying to develop a closer rapport with russia, underlining that with the trade links those countries are rely on. brazil needs fertiliser from russia and also wants to sell russia

to meet. there are relationships here to become stronger with other countries don't want russian goods and there are deals to be done and thatis and there are deals to be done and that is undoubtedly at the heart of what is happening here. of course when brazil call for peace would they are really calling for is a draw in a sense was that they want russian to be able to retain any land it has seized by force during the ukrainian conflict of this moment in time because they cannot surely expect any other form of peace knowing that russia would want to keep what is gained and not go back where it is in terms of its own land situation so very different approach from what the g7 countries are taking to russia at that minute. i know that sometimes your as by foreign governments for help and how to represent themselves in washington have you had any of this from third—party countries, from securely global south countries who don't really know how to pick their way through this?— way through this? listen, i think the 've way through this? listen, i think

they've chosen _ way through this? listen, i think they've chosen russia. - way through this? listen, i think they've chosen russia. have i they've chosen russia. have relationships with a lot of latin american — relationships with a lot of latin american governments and right now a lot of them _ american governments and right now a lot of them lean centreleft of philosophically almost aligned with some _ philosophically almost aligned with some of— philosophically almost aligned with some of the russian philosophy but if you _ some of the russian philosophy but if you look— some of the russian philosophy but if you look at the trade agreements there _ if you look at the trade agreements there is— if you look at the trade agreements there is a _ if you look at the trade agreements there is a strong alliance there with— there is a strong alliance there with several governments reaching out to _ with several governments reaching out to me — with several governments reaching out to me at the beginning of the ukrainian — out to me at the beginning of the ukrainian war talking about is there any chance — ukrainian war talking about is there any chance that they can step in and hire somebody to help navigate want to because they will not retreat in ukraine — to because they will not retreat in ukraine so — to because they will not retreat in ukraine. so i'm not surprised to hear— ukraine. so i'm not surprised to hear this — ukraine. so i'm not surprised to hearthis. it's ukraine. so i'm not surprised to hear this. it's long established during — hear this. it's long established during the term administration that russia _ during the term administration that russia had — during the term administration that russia had strong ties in latin america and it will continue to have those _ america and it will continue to have those ties. do america and it will continue to have those ties. , ., ,, ., ., ., those ties. do you know what a quiche is? _ those ties. do you know what a quiche is? l _ those ties. do you know what a quiche is? i do. _ those ties. do you know what a quiche is? i do. i— those ties. do you know what a quiche is? i do. i had _ those ties. do you know what a quiche is? i do. i had keys- those ties. do you know what a quiche is? i do. i had keys this| quiche is? i do. i had keys this morning- _ quiche is? i do. i had keys this morning- are _ quiche is? i do. i had keys this morning. are you _ quiche is? i do. i had keys this morning. are you partial- quiche is? i do. i had keys this morning. are you partial to i quiche is? i do. i had keys this morning. are you partial to a l quiche is? i do. i had keys this i morning. are you partialto a bit quiche is? i do. i had keys this i morning. are you partial to a bit of ke s? morning. are you partial to a bit of keys? i don't— morning. are you partial to a bit of keys? i don't like vegetables. i don't know whether _ keys? i don't like vegetables. i don't know whether there i keys? i don't like vegetables. i| don't know whether there is any broccoli in — don't know whether there is any broccoli in this particular quiche are not — broccoli in this particular quiche are not. ~ . ., broccoli in this particular quiche are not-_ i - broccoli in this particular quiche. are not._ i don't are not. what about you? i don't consider that _ are not. what about you? i don't consider that to _ are not. what about you? i don't consider that to be _ are not. what about you? i don't consider that to be a _ are not. what about you? i don't consider that to be a party i are not. what about you? i don't consider that to be a party food | are not. what about you? i don't| consider that to be a party food is on egg is a boring monday night

dinner and not for a state occasions while suppressing that as the dinner of choice to mark the coronation. my wife is laughing as if it is because there's always a quiche in the fridge when i come home. that's what i survive on actually. i’m fridge when i come home. that's what i survive on actually.— i survive on actually. i'm happy to hear there — i survive on actually. i'm happy to hear there are _ i survive on actually. i'm happy to hear there are vegetables - i survive on actually. i'm happy to hear there are vegetables in - i survive on actually. i'm happy to i hear there are vegetables in quiche. i'm not_ hear there are vegetables in quiche. i'm not going to see if survive is coronation chicken survive if that's is stable now. coronation chicken survive if that's is stable nova— coronation chicken survive if that's is stable now.- have - coronation chicken survive if that's is stable now.- have you | is stable now. forever. have you tasted it? _ is stable now. forever. have you tasted it? i _ is stable now. forever. have you tasted it? i have. _ is stable now. forever. have you tasted it? i have. is— is stable now. forever. have you tasted it? i have. is it— is stable now. forever. have you tasted it? i have. is it a - is stable now. forever. have you tasted it? i have. is it a thing - is stable now. forever. have you tasted it? i have. is it a thing in | tasted it? i have. is it a thing in america? _ tasted it? i have. is it a thing in america? no. _ tasted it? i have. is it a thing in america? no, i'm _ tasted it? i have. is it a thing in america? no, i'm not _ tasted it? i have. is it a thing in america? no, i'm not happy - tasted it? i have. is it a thing in america? no, i'm not happy in| tasted it? i have. is it a thing in i america? no, i'm not happy in the tasted it? i have. is it a thing in - america? no, i'm not happy in the us but i've had — america? no, i'm not happy in the us but i've had it when _ america? no, i'm not happy in the us but i've had it when i _ america? no, i'm not happy in the us but i've had it when i travelled. - but i've had it when i travelled. what _ but i've had it when i travelled. what about you, coronation chicken? i'm not a massive fan of fruit and chicken together is anything that has raisins in it is fundamentally wrong. quite a taste. absolutely. ever a scottish _ wrong. quite a taste. absolutely. ever a scottish girl, _ wrong. quite a taste. absolutely. ever a scottish girl, not _ wrong. quite a taste. absolutely. ever a scottish girl, not with - ever a scottish girl, not with chicken. i know what your

peccadilloes are but i wanted to know whether quiche floated your boat or not we will see whether it's hit with the punters on the weekend of the coronation. we will be right back and talk about maths and is the colour in america. right back. hello. our weather for the next few days looks pretty quiet across the uk as a whole. there'll be some cloud coming and going, maybe the odd light shower, but really nothing much to report in the way of rain before the end of the week. we will, though, have perhaps a strengthening easterly breeze contributing to a chillier feel in the next 48 hours or so. that easterly wind comes across from the north sea underneath this area of high pressure. currently centred across scandinavia, it drifts across to the north of the uk by the time we get to thursday. and that easterly wind, as we look at the small hours of tuesday, introduces some thicker cloud, mist and murk to many eastern regions of the uk, pushing across into the midlands by the end of the night as well. overnight lows widely 4—6 degrees in a few sheltered spots.

we could, though, just capture a few patches of ground frost, particularly the north—east of scotland, perhaps the welsh marches. tuesday, though, there's the high across scandinavia. easterly breeze again across england and wales. we should clear a lot of that low cloud, mist and murk quite early on in the day, perhaps a bit hanging back around some of the north sea coasts, but a lot of sunshine essentially taking us into tuesday afternoon. that wind off the north sea, though, will keep things feeling chilly across eastern counties and particularly adjacent to the north sea coast, because essentially, you're just fetching air in that's been cooled down by those north sea waters, and at this time of year, they are only around 8 degrees. we will see, i think, a bit more cloud across the south—east and east anglia pooled across from the near continent come the afternoon. highs here ofjust i2 and with the chance of the odd shower developing through the afternoon. that whole area of cloud marked up as a little weather feature here will transfer further west on the easterly wind to the south of our high for wednesday. so, a bit more cloud initially on wednesday,

perhaps across the midlands, wales and for the south—west of england. on and off through the day, there mayjust be the odd light shower. again with that wind, eastern counties, particularly coastal regions, struggling with the temperatures. towards the west as well, just a shade cooler, i think, than it was to start the week. but we are looking at temperatures in many spots reaching the low—to—mid—teens. for thursday, perhaps some rain arriving into the east later on, more widespread across england and wales on friday. the weekend, though, looks pretty showery for all and perhaps quite chilly to end.

hello, i'm christian fraser. you're watching the context on bbc news. the uk lags far behind other advanced countries in failing to teach maths to the age of 18. rishi sunak wants a change in emphasis. the problem recurring is that that government has missed their target to recruit maths teachers in every one of the last 12 years. we will discuss. i was never very good at maths. but there was one year when it did make sense to me, and i do remember that was down to a particular teacher who had an ability to explain it in a way that made sense. but then i only ever saw maths gcse as a hurdle to be overcome and then forgotten.

the prime minister says that is the "anti—maths mindset"