when ai produced evidence or ai analyzed evidence comes to court, risks of error are present.just as they are with human witnesses. yet, one of the new tout -- challenges is that some traditional safeguards we have for cross-examining human testimony do not apply to machine generated outputs. so it is very difficult to put an ai output on the stand under o and -- both and cross-examine their demeanor. that won't work with the technology we knew -- need to ensure proper safeguards is of the legal technology of ensuring robust discovery and transparency rules available, perhaps, more pretrial testing access to the technologies for validation and scrutiny rather than simply relying on the current evidence rules that exist. sen. ossoff: where ai is used for purposes of investigative analysis, transparency and it discovery through the adversarial process can be sufficient. what about verification? the verification of their veracity, or authenticity of evidence presented in court? professor wexler: so, for evidence presented in court --. sen. ossoff: or presented as predicate to ope

>> i don't want to characterize the evidence. >> that is the type of evidence --. expect to sum up, he is facing additional charges for lying to investigators. is that correct? >> those are allegations pending. >> and the reason that president biden -- is not that they went easy on him but because after reviewing 7 million documents and interviewing nearly 150 witnesses, including the president himself, you could not prove that he had committed a crime. i yelled back. >> the gentleman, from california, mr. mcclintock, is recognized. >> i want to get this right. is it okay if i take home top- secret documents, store them in my garage, and read portions of them to friends or associates? >> congressman, i would not recommend it but i don't want to entertain any hypotheticals. >> was it okay? i can do that? >> congressman, i would not recommend that you do that. >> but you potentially said so in your report. essentially said so. and it would be exculpatory by -- if i told you, i am getting old and i don't remember stuff as well as i used to. >> congressman, i am not he

>> my judgement as to how a jury would likely perceive and receive evidence relating to all the evidence put in by government and defense at trial was based on number of different sources from documents, recordings, some tw 2016 and 2017 timeframe, some from our interview in october of 2023. i think what you are asking about specifically is how the president presented himself during interview of in october of last year, i did take into account not just the words, but entire manner in living color realtime how the president presented himself. >> hopefully he didn't outsmart all of us. i want to comment mr. raskin -- communist and i have a good recollection what it is and -- on the rise and march you said, they have been embolden by president obama and now president biden and our government and department of justice is now resembles tyrannical government, sad to see that, i'm going with double standard what we have there, i will yield to chairman jordan my time. >> during your one-year investigation, did you have communication with white house and white house counsel in particular? >> yes.

this makes the development of technologies favor identifying evidence of guilt rather than evidence ofinnocence. any support congress could give to ai technology designed to identify evidence of innocence would be very promising at -- and my biggest concern is technologies kept secret and with help from adversarial review by vendors. sen. whitehouse: mr. aguilar, with your experience in law enforcement have you used any ai technologies with ballistics information with cartridges, bullets? mr. aguilar: absolutely, senator. with our partnership with atf we do have an in house ballistics program, our prime gun intelligence center, one of many tools we employ to investigate and prevent violent crime. sen. whitehouse: is it an ai component? before ai there were still computer programs to prove -- compare, for instance, the markings on and ejected cartridge or the markings on a spent bullet to other markings in the same way that fingerprint searches take place, not so much with modern ai, it is just, can -- computer databases. rep. granger: our definition of ai sometimes changes. as technolo

so valuable evidence for you as the special counsel named to investigate this issue, valuable evidence for you to reach your conclusion, and the statements you put in your report and all i'm asking, shouldn't the united states congress have access to that same information? >> chairman, it is not for me to weigh into what information congress should or should not have. but what i will tell you, audio recordings were part of the evidence of course i considered in coming to my conclusions. >> yield back to the gentleman from kentucky and then north dakota. >> north dakota. >> you retailed mr. biden retained in his delaware basement, classified documents to his time in the senate 1970s. >> correct. >> and through 1991, found at the university of delaware and biden center papers. >> correct. >> and more papers from the 1970s and 1980s found in biden's delaware garage. >> i believe that's -- yes, that's correct. >> quote, nearly 50 years of experience dealing with classified information, including member senate select committee, and judiciary, and foreign relations, and vice president of the

unlike the evidence from mr.iden the allegations set forth in the indictment of president trump prevent serious aggravating facts. most notably after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, mr. trump did the opposite. he not only refused to return documents but he also -- to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. in contrast, mr. biden turned in information to the department of justice and consented to searches. set for a voluntary interview and cooperated with this. >> i see that language. inspect do you still stand by that? >> i do, sir. >> this is your report. you take full responsibility for everything in the documents? >> i do. i stand by every word. >> okay. i want to ask you a couple of questions. one is with respect to the surprising one of questions that you got right before we broke about guardianship. it seems to me like a dramatic stretch of anything that was remotely involved in your report. ■y -- did you reason a kind of issues about president biden nee

but not other evidence, that is somehow the evidence you destroyed?ged. biden and tr been treated equally. they were not. that is the double standard but i think a lot of americans are concerned about. i see my time is expired. i yield back. >> the gentleman yelled back. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> think you, mr. chairman. for being here. i am out the big picture that we could be concerned about but in the limited picture, director mueller had an investigation. he is famous recent special prosecutor and he found sufficient evidence to say there was connection between russia and the trump campaign. you found there was no evidence to support a criminal prosecution. in the story here is simple. president biden identified classified documents in his home and other places and told archives about him. >> a political appointee of special counsel to fully investigate the circumstances and rise to prosecute. you declined to prosecute because you found insufficient evidence of a crime. case close >> mr. garland at his job, an

relates to evidence that was submitted by counsel after the evidence was closed.lysis was done by a non-experts. >> as it relates to the proffered evidence, our proffered evidence would be indirect rebuttal to the testimony given in the courtroom particularly by mr. bradley. we would have direct rebuttal of that, that is what our proffer would be. i just want to put that on the record. judge mcafee: so we know the context. is that the same for mr. cromwell as well? >> it is. judge mcafee: all right. >> the proffered evidence would corroborate what was submitted as evidence. judge mcafee: ok. all right. then, if there is nothing else, i will turn it over to ms. merchant to begin on behalf of the defense. >> i'm sorry, judge. she cannot be here today. >> may you please the court, john merchan on behalf of mr. roman. by way of roadmap to give you an idea of the allocation of time and what i will be covering. i've been charged with talking to your honor about the conflict issue and the appearance of the confli the evidence to show on that issue. mr. gillam will be tal

the evidence fell short of that standard. i declined to recommend criminal charges against mr. biden. the department's regulations required me to write a confidential report explaining my decision to the attorney general. i understood that my explanation about this case had to include rigorous, detailed, and thorough analysis. in other words, i needed to show my work just as i would expect, any prosecutor to show his or her work explaining just the decision to prosecute for not the need to show my work was especially strong here. the attorney general had appointed me to investigate the actions of the attorney general's boss, the sitting president of the united states. i knew that for my decision to be credible, i could not simply announce that i recommended no criminal charges and leave it at that. i needed to explain why my report reflects my best effort to explain why i declined to recommend charging president biden. i analyze the evidence as prosecutors routinely due by assessing its strengths and weaknesses, including by

say they collected no evidence. that is the words of promoting that happened this week . why? oh, tunnels, underneath hospitals, if they weren't using the hospitals as human shields, you know what i called these hospitals? i call the mazda tunnels, under the whole of gaza. but why put guys under siege? but anyway, fundamental to all of this is the right of the palace, getting people to struggle against a, a struggle. they were offered a state and 48 and 67 in uh, 9 uh, maybe 2, but they still have the right to um, sort of the la against occupation or direct me. there was an estate in 2005, there's a night in 2007, 800 omer. offered them to stay on 98 percent of the west bank. a 100 percent. is this relevant? well, and they turned it down so no, they have no right to struggle. they have a right to diplomacy. they have the right to accept a 2 state solution to argue for. but they have no right to rate at to be head agile assault as a kidnap. and to take a one year old baby and hold them hostage, we didn't even know th

. >> if you destroy some evidence but not other evidence, that is somehow going to for the evidence youestroyed? >> here is what i see. should have been charged. biden and trump should have been treated equally. they were not. that is the double standard but i think a lot of americans are concerned about. i see my time is expired. i yield back. >> the gentleman yelled back. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> think you, mr. chairman. for being here. i am confused about this hearing. laid out the big picture that we could be concerned about but in the limited picture, director mueller had an investigation. he is famous recent special prosecutor and he found sufficient evidence to say there was connection between russia and the trump campaign. you found there was no evidence to support a criminal prosecution. in the story here is simple. president biden identified classified documents in his home and other places and told archives about him. >> a political appointee of special counsel to fully investigate the circumstances and rise to prosecute. you declined to

floyd, the white male because there was no evidence and is no evidence of a personal romantic relationship with them in which he obtained these benefits. that's the reason why we did not do that. so she goes forward with the deflections. that's exactly what she does when she goes forward, and she talks about planned interviews, time and time again with authors of a book, find me the votes where she's talking about a case that's going to be tried in this courtroom. it's reprehensible. >> so in that specific instance, setting aside the fact that she was willing to go on the record before a case had even reached the jury, what specific statements from that do you contend crossed the line? >> well, for example, she goes on to talk about all of the calls that she gets from people calling her racial terms. and all the calls are racist. what she's trying to do, and i think there's a reference in there to maga people, whatever, in that what she's really saying is that those people calling me up and making those claims or those horrible racial slurs to me are really people on their side of the fenc

of evidence — to provide you with a richer source of evidence that a population of 3 million _ of evidencei don't think we — million. so in some ways i don't think we should be surprised that a lot of— think we should be surprised that a lot of the _ think we should be surprised that a lot of the information that sage has is from _ lot of the information that sage has is from the — lot of the information that sage has is from the largest nation. however, there _ is from the largest nation. however, there were _ is from the largest nation. however, there were times when they would have been— there were times when they would have been specific dimensions, that were pertinent to wales, where you struggle _ were pertinent to wales, where you struggle a _ were pertinent to wales, where you struggle a bit to see where it sage was finding the evidence it might have needed to make sure that welsh circumstances were being taken into account _ circumstances were being taken into account in— circumstances were being taken into account in its deliberations. you identify another _ account in its delibe

gf do you have comments on that evidence?— do you have comments on that evidence?ted by the people of wales to discharge that's response ability. whereas the secretary is concerned, to be evenhanded as i can, where he's discharge his responsibilities at work is to be discharge he did so effectively so during the progress of the pandemic there were points when the welsh government sought the assistance of military authorities and there is a process, military assistance to civil authorities. the secretary of state for wales has a pommel part to play in that process and he always did it perfectly satisfactorily. he was always a where he was needed, always move the process along by discharging his responsibilities so where he had a role to play, i have got no complaints about what he did. my difficulty was particularly in the early days with frankly little else to do the secretary of state filled his days by writing letters to me asking me about the welsh government's responsibilities. and the risk was that he was beginning to get in the way of our ability to do the th

biden. >> if you destroy some evidence but not other evidence that's somehow ab solves you of the evidence you destroyed? he should have been charged and wasn't. biden and trump should have been treated equally and they weren't and a double standard a lot of americans are concerned about. i see my time is expired. >> the gentleman was tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. hur, thank you for being here. little confused about this hearing. mr. raskin laid out the big picture. in the more limited picture, director mueller had an investigation, the most famous recent special prosecutor and found sufficient evidence to say there was connection between russia and the trump campaign but it did not support a federal prosecution. you found there was no evidence to support a prosecution. president biden identified classified documents in his home and told archives about them. the independent department of justice appointed you, a former trump political appointee as special counsel to investigate these circumstances and authorized you to prosecute criminal misconduct. you declined to prose

but it was clear and convincing evidence of right, very strong evidence of rake very. and that was after discounts. all this, the evidence is clear. why deny it why become a holocaust, they're not there. why deny? that's in. we'll watch the uses human shields and he wants israel to kill as many palestinian babies as possible because that helps home us in the court of public opinion, palestinian from us leaders have bragged about the use of children and women as human shields there. okay, i just have to say, i just have to say, i always say how often i any of these a be headed babies. these, these are raped claims and i have to say the united nations. i'm reading the u. n thing here. the latest report which has they didn't find actual evidence for that, but only a human shields point. i mean, i know, and you and your book, you cool, i'm just the international. so i'm kind of apologised for home or something. but you know that there is no evidence of all the human shields rent easy and you're seeing that repeatedly said that there was no human shields and not bother with

wow. >> so if you destroy some evidence, but not other evidence, that somehow absolves you of the evidence. you destroy it like here's what i see. zhuan or should have been charged, wasn't biden and trump should have been treated equally. they weren't. and that is the double standard that i think a lot of americans are concerned about. i see my time expired, i yield back gentleman yields back the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. herb, thank you for being here with are confused about this hearing. mr. raskin laid out the big picture. what we should be concerned about. but in the more limited picture director mueller had an investigation. he's our most famous recent special prosecutor, and he found sufficient evidence to say there was connection between russia and the trump campaign. >> but in it did not put in and supported a criminal prosecution. if you were not present, you found there was no evidence to support a criminal prosecution in the story here is simple. president biden identified classified documents in his home

i had a particular set of evidence to consider and make a judgment to one particular set of evidence and that's what i did. >> here is the fine point of the matter. the foundation of our justice system is equal justice under law. that's what gave the law its respect and its legitimacy. the law is devoid of any moral authority. justice is depicted as blindfolded for this reason. it doesn't matter who comes before her, all are treated equally. you destroyed this foundation. and the rule of law becomes a sick mockery. it becomes a weapon to wield against political rivals and a tool. and i'm desperately afraid this decision of the department of justice has how crossed a very bright line. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. >> can i introduce the state of the union into the hearing? >> without objection that will be introduced. the ranking member is recognized for unanimous consent. >> i ask unanimous consent that a copy of an article in this morning's "washington post" entitled full transcript of biden special counsel interview paints portrait the president doesn't come across as abs

we considered it to be significant evidence to >> are would argue that you had significant evidence surrounding retention of these documents. the storage of these documents and even though there was a bit of a disconnect een what a reasonable jury could conclude, the intent was there and the motive was there for the book. forexoneration and i would argue that you had enough to move forward. time has expired. i yield back. >>lady from dashes recognize. >> thank you special counsel mr. hur for staying. i think it speaks to the possibility and prominence afforded by this nation that immigrants sit here as special counsel. and i sit here as a member of congress. there is a lot that has been said today and part of the challenge that i have is trying to translate this for i constituents back home. i want tostart with sort of a top line. you were tasked with identifying whether criminal conduct occurred regarding classified documents.xy and after over one year of investigation, including 150 witness interviews and over 7 million documents revi wrote in the first sentences of the executive summary, "we

biden, the evidence set forth by mr.ould have facts -- >> keep going. >> congresswoman, i'm happy for you to read -- >> i think it's more fitting that you i think it's more

blot is that something you have ever seen evidence of?— evidence of?an imagine i follow _ evidence of? not at all and as you can imagine i follow this - evidence of? not at all and as you can imagine i follow this very - can imagine i follow this very closely— can imagine i follow this very closely and i do not believe the idf have provided any credible evidence since _ have provided any credible evidence since october the 7th before then that these hospitals were being used as hamas _ that these hospitals were being used as hamas command centres. i've been in al-shifa _ as hamas command centres. i've been in al—shifa hospital on many occasions, spoken to people i've known _ occasions, spoken to people i've known for— occasions, spoken to people i've known for many years who work there and i known for many years who work there and i do _ known for many years who work there and i do not _ known for many years who work there and i do not believe there is any evidence — and i do not believe there is any evidence to suggest that. when i was working _ evide

but the documentary evidence, the objective evidence, undercuts everything that both wade and willis said. when you look at miss serie d, again, she unequivocally said that relationship began in 2019. she saw physical evidence of a romantic relationship. mr. bradley in the text messages which are substantive evidence says that that relationship began in 2019. again, his -- january, you know, temporary amnesia that somehow is triggered temporarily after the phone call. we can question that. but we do have statements from him that specifically said that relationship predated mr. wade's appointment ms. willis. you asked -- well, mr. wade you asked what that materiality would be. how much is it, huh? well, clearly, 70,000 is enough. but fulton county has told us, has told mrs. willis what that materiality is. it is $100 in a year. she was signed declarations, certifications that she did not receive any gifts. and even other her strained explanation, there were monies, there were gifts, there were dinners, there were excess contributions flowing her way that exceeded $100. her excuse or i

there's no evidence your lawyer know. you have to defend with the evidence. and i and i saw the picture i had, i know the person is had it's, it's online. his head was over just for sale content, that was all i is. none of this being validated by the official un reports into a trust is and it has been validated and it's absolutely true. i sat next to the father crying his eyes out, showing me the picture of the sun. well, the white house has walked back by moves. why these are right here. so it's for $10000.00. you destroy your own credibility when you dispute that. when do you disagree the race? when you dispute the use of human shields, you destroy your credibility, you just will be either below clearly like a hi there. remember nazis? the $9.00 cost the so many years and that destroyed their credibility. and anyone who says there was no rates, anyone who says there is no human feels does not deserve to be less than 2 on any other subject. their credibility is gone. okay, well, we haven't seen the evidence. the new york times is walking back earlier pieces

-- >> so if you destroy some evidence but not other evidence that somehow absolves you of the evidence you do destroy? what i see is the ghostwriter should have been charged and wasn't, and biden and trump should have been treated equally, and they were not. that's what the american people should be concerned about. >> the gentlemen from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. raskin laid out the big picture that we could be concerned about, but in the more limited picture, director muller found sufficient evidence to say there was a connection between russia and the trump campaign, and it supported a criminal prosecution if you were not president. you found no evidence to support a criminal prosecution. it's simple, the independent department of justice appointed you as special counsel to fully investigate the issues, and you found in sufficient evidence of a crime. case closed. you did your job. mr. garland did his job, and unlike mr. barr, he did not interfere. did mr. garland ask you to change your report? >> no. >> mr. barr redacted the report. the department o

it was not interesting evidence -- introducing evidence that mr. burns turned her down.i would ask the court to take judicial notice. it's been asked repeatedly. >> i don't recall is hearing that. >> i don't recall ms. willis testifying to that exact fact. mr. banks represented that to the court during monday's hearing as it relates to the allegations that were made. i understand that. >> just making sure we understand what's exactly in the evidence. regardless, i think your point is made. >> it's in the evidence of the record as it relates to the issues that led up to the actual hearing of this case. i understand your honor's position. but it did come out during the preceding that was prior to the actual hearing. this slide is just a chart showing the of both the district attorney ms. willis and mr. wade as it relates to how they met. how and when mr. wade became the special prosecutor, when the relationship evolved into a romantic one. talking about the trips in which they took after their relationship evolved into one that became romantic. and when it ended. again, i

anyway, there was zero evidence, not a single shred of evidence was produced to any of the exhibits or the witness testimony showing how their constitutional rights that are due process rights. we're all were at all affected by the relationship that began in march of 2022 with ms willis? mr. wade. and because of that, the motions to disqualify should be denied. and ms willis, the district attorney of fulton county, and mr. wade, as the special prosecutor assigned to this case. to be loud, to remain on this case and continue and continue to prosecute the case for the end, your honor, until the trial is set by the court and to begin now, the issues obviously, you've heard a lot from defense counsel as to what the issue all are for you to i guess, determine. and here we the state's contention is that you must find that there's an actual conflict. if you were or are to come to conclusion, that you should disqualify ms willis, the district attorney's office and looking at and what you're talking about, this has been tura it's mcglynn, the state mcg ly and n b state 342, georgia appeal 172,0

this evidence included an audio recorded conversation during which mr. biden told his ghost writer that he had, quote, just found all the classified stuff downstairs, end quote. when mr. biden said this, he was a private citizen, speaking to his ghost writer, in his private rental home in virginia. we also identified other recorded conversations during which mr. biden read classified information aloud to his ghost writer. we did not, however, identify evidence that rose to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. because the evidence fell short of that standard, i declined to recommend criminal charges against mr. biden. the department's regulations required me to write a confidential report explaining my decision to the attorney general. i understood that my explanation about this case had to include rigorous detailed and thorough analysis. in other words, i needed to show my work. just as i would expect any prosecutor to show his or her work explaining the decision to prosecute or not. the need to show my work was especially strong here. the attor

one might assume the same will occur here but we have no evidence of that and we don't see evidence currently of something being created that is undetectable. it just may take time. s >> i really do question whether that, but i think it's intellectually rigorous and i don't always agree with his conclusions but he's an honest person and i think where he wasd going with substantive which is the idea that, somehow, they ai technology companies we are talking about that you rightfully asked for, adversarial scrutiny, peer reviews, how urgent it is to get over this, the concern that i think he was getting at was thater those companies you have legitimate, it might be cynical to say they are just interested not in being able to continue to sell their products, that you had a good retort for the idea, that those companies get more protection by opening themselves up to scrutiny. could you explain that to me a little more? >> absolutely. trade secret law is a body of intellectual property that creates a negotiation, by presenting property rights to the owner, so there are limitations all the time, p

may i submit the evidence to you. you have the roommate who admitted the evidence that she saw the personal relationship. you have the text message. you have terrence bradley who embarrassed the profession of lawyer you areing where he sent text messages admitting he was aware of the relationship and he is sweating saying i don't recall, i don't recall. those are prior inconsistent statements. he was unbelievable. this judge can rule on the actual conflict or the appearance. i believe there is actual conflict, harris. >> harris: i want to get to president -- former president trump now who is in a florida courtroom at this moment learning more about when his classified documents trial will actually begin. so what you are looking at on screen is fort pierce, florida where the courtroom is. special counsel jack smith filed a request to begin july 8th for the trial. and trump's team wants august 12th at the earliest but prefers it would move after the 2024 election in november. all of this comes after the u.s. supreme cou

., , evidence.essor, so interesting to talk to you and _ evidence. professor, so interesting to talk to you and thank— evidence. professor, so interesting to talk to you and thank you - evidence. professor, so interesting to talk to you and thank you for - to talk to you and thank you for joining us. stay with us on bbc news. . there was a lot of dry weather on friday but cloud varied from place to place. southern england had some sunshine with temperatures reaching 12 degrees in hampshire, 13 degrees in sussex, the warmest spot in the country, eastern scotland, temperature struggling around 6 degrees. we had something cold the helm wind which blew across northern england, prevailing wind is a maximum 30 miles an hour, look at that, 71 miles an hour and the gusting winds were pulled into the eden valley with gusts reaching 55 miles an hour. that is the helm wind, the only name wind in the uk. at the moment we have a lot of cloud across the country, gusty winds keeping temperatures around four or 5 d

however, he did find some evidence of criminality. he did find evidence pretty clear cut evidence. that joe biden retained classified documents, knew he retain them as evidenced on that tape and did not immediately turn them back over. the other thing that i think is important to note is that joe biden did mislead the public as did other members of joe biden's team. because for the past year or so, the talking point and we've seen this repeated many times times has been it was entirely unintentional by joe biden. he had no idea he had any of these documents, things get moved around. whoops, what are you going to do? it turns out that is somewhat fair when it comes to some of the documents, but not others. he absolutely knew we had these documents. i do think the decision not to charge him was a close one, but i think it was sound yeah. >> i agree. i agree. i mean, i think that we were talking about this a little bit break. there's been a little bit of muddying about this notion of if you get in front of a jury, what the jury is going to do. i mean, almost sounds like he was saying,

we considered it to be significant evidence we needed to follow up on. >> significant evidence.ould argue you also had significant evidence surrounding the retention of these documents, the storage of these documents, and even though there was a bit of a disconnect between what a reasonable juror could conclude, the intent was there, the motive was there for the book, for exoneration, and i would argue you had enough to move forward. my time's expired. i yield back. >> the gentle lady from vermont. >> thank you for being here today. i know it's been hours and hours. i appreciate you staying to the bitter end here. i think it speaks to the possibility and promise afforded by this nation that you as a child of immigrants sit here as special counsel and i as a member of congress. there's a lot that's been said today and part of the challenge that i have is trying to translate this for my constituents back home. so i want to start with the top line. so you were tasked with identifying whether criminal conduct occurred regarding classified documents. and after over a year of investig

i think that the evidence _ criminality. i think that the evidence we _ criminality.iminality. i think that the evidence we did recover. criminality. i think that the i evidence we did recover and criminality. i think that the - evidence we did recover and was put before _ evidence we did recover and was put before the _ evidence we did recover and was put before the prosecuting _ evidence we did recover and was put before the prosecuting authorities . before the prosecuting authorities was considerable _ before the prosecuting authorities was considerable and _ before the prosecuting authorities was considerable and compelling. | before the prosecuting authorities - was considerable and compelling. and i think. _ was considerable and compelling. and ithink. if— was considerable and compelling. and i think. if we _ was considerable and compelling. and r think, if we apply— was considerable and compelling. and i think, if we apply the _ i think, if we apply the recommendation - i think, if we apply the recommendation thati i think, if we apply the i recommendation that

and rob, what robert hur seems to be trying to say, there was evidence, some evidence, but not enough to charge him with a crime that's an important distinction in the report. robert hur showed us photos of where some of these documents were stored in joe biden's home and office. and of course, the single phrase that may be gained the most attention is robert hur's characterization that president biden would present himself as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory that's become a very controversial phrase. did it need he to be included? is it relevant? robert hur says it's relevant to assessing his mental state, which is part of the legal calculation here. >> he is going to be on the hot seat in front of congress. you have democrats and republicans coming for, what should we expect to hear in the form of questions? yeah. to her. so we >> are in the house judiciary committee chaired by jim jordan. jim jordan will be running the show today. the ranking member for democrats is jerry. now there, there are 25 republicans on this committee, 19 democrats. i did the math

what evidence is there? can you clarify. evidence is there? clarify that, evidence is there? can you clarify that. please? _ evidence is there? can you clarify that, please? well, _ evidence is there? can you clarify that, please? well, the - evidence is there? can you clarify that, please? well, the evidence| evidence is there? can you clarify l that, please? well, the evidence is the amount of aid that is actually getting into gaza, which is only a tiny, tiny percentage of the material that was getting into gaza prior to the 7th of october. something like 500 trucks were getting into gaza every day and that was below what people needed because a blockade has been imposed for 60 years, so the situation was not normal prior to the 7th of october. gaza was already in a coma situation and now only a trickle of aid has got in. if people are that desperate that they are running towards the truck, that tells you something. if every single humanitarian operator in gaza is telling you that people are malnourished, that people are not receiving what t

r unerted substantial evidence of president biden's and his family's corruption. the biden's created 20 shell companies, most of which were created when joe biden was vice presid and for anyone who doesn't understand what a shell company is i'm talking to the here, a shell company is a company with no assets known purpose. we determined the bidenshell companies. the bidens and their associated raked over $30 million from china, russia, ukraine romania and democrat donors. 10 members of the biden family, including joe biden, either participated or the family influenced peddling schemes. the biden family business? that's been a big question of this whole investigation. what was the business? biden family ass was the brand. president biden has repeatedly lied to the american people he never interacted with his sons' associates. when joe biden was vice president. he spoke associate, his son's associates by speaker phone over dined with foreign oligarchs, ad coffee with his son's chinese associa president. since you care so much about russia, we know that vice presiden

. 14 months of no evidence.an a couple weeks ago we saw everything for the crumble. alexander smirnov who the republicans faced the majority of this investigation on was arrested and indicted for lying about the claims he made about president biden and his son. and on top of that it was found that it was probably part of the russian disinformation campaign which is extremely scary when you think about however foreign adversaries mightthese republice aligned with donald trump in congress to try to sway our elections. so it was about time. james comer had all the witnesses again and again who provided no evidence and it was frankly long past time for us to call an end to this investigation. host: if you like to call him and asked a question, make a comment, and conducive. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. us and we are watching our social media feeds. your organization launched a campaign. there is a mobile billboard, there is a website called comerimpeachmentfai

we considered to be significant evidence that we needed to follow up on. >> significant evidence, and i would argue that you also had significant evidence surrounding the retention of these documents, the storage of these documents, and even though there was a bit of a disconnect between what a reasonable juror could conclude, the intent was there, the motive was there for the book, for exoneration, and i would argue that you had enough to move forward. my time has expired. i yield back. >> gentle lady from vermont is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair and thank you, special counsel hur for being here today. i know it's been hours and hours and appreciate you staying to the bitter end here. i think it speaks to the possibility and promise afforded by this nation that you as a child of immigrants sit here as special counsel and i as a child of immigrants sit here as a member of congress. there is a lot that's been said today and part of the challenge that i have is trying to translate this for my constituents back home. and so i want to start with sort of the top line

now again you looked for evidence to support this claim. there is no evidence, correct?hy the majority and ukraine and at the oim is bs corrupt, not because he was investigating but he was stalling investigation looking into a23 wanted to get out from and they stalled ■o■jthat invtis just the opposite of what the majority claims to be the case. namely that they say that somehow joe biden was fire the prosecutor to reduce the chances of a prosecution. but the prosecutor, he increased the chances of prosecuting, right? >> so let me talk about what some of the othes in this inquiry have said. the constitutional expert, the republicans brought forth said there's no evidence of which he was aware to support impeaching the president. you agree with that? >> 100%. a colleague of ours said last week have ieen■■vio6t impeachab. do you agree with that statement as well? our republican colleague who is about to retire said that evidence of wrongdoing by president biden, quote, doesn't exist right now. didn't then.xist now and it >> that's true. >> how many times have you met donald

defense exhibit 26 came into evidence.ense exhibit 26 comes in and says -- and you know i went into this the last hearing. it says that on january the 5th, 2024 at approximately 9:49 a.m., there's text messages that are exchanged between ms. merchant and mr. bradley, and the text messages go like just date, and that's from ms. merchant. ms. merchant says, do you think it started before she hired him? bradley, who we now know from defense exhibit 39 has been texting with ms. merchant for a number of months. this is not the first time, this is months within the communications between the two. mr. bradley says absolutely. now, absolutely is not a speculative word. that's not speculation. that's a definitive statement, and bradley then unprompted says this, and unprompted is important. it started when she left the d.a.'s office and was a judge in south fulton. it goes on, ms. merchant says or she liked it started when she left the d.a.'s office with the appropriate emoji or whatever one would call it to say it was liked, and t

the second one blew a hole in the confession evidence.as an interview with one of the actual bombers. ultimately, you talked to all of the four men who were involved in the birmingham bomb plot, two of whom you believe planted the bombs which killed the people in the pubs, two of whom. made the bombs. had perhaps different roles. two of whom. two men made the bombs and two men planted both bombs in both pubs. the first person i went to see was michael murray, who... his name had been in the frame for a long time, though. he served a prison sentence for involvement in the other bombings in and around birmingham, but nothing was ever pinned on him in relation to this, although he was put on trial alongside these six men. and one can only think that the reason for doing that, since two of them worked in the same engineering plant as him, was to try and make it look as though they were all part of the same gang, as it were. now, i went looking for murray, who by this time had been released from prison, and he was very difficult to persuade. h