and mr griffiths write to mr chester, "as you are _ griffiths write to mr chester, "as you are awarestem i enjoyed a satisfactory post office business — i enjoyed a satisfactory post office business. for some considerable yearsi _ business. for some considerable years. i— business. for some considerable years, i have been accused of wrongful— years, i have been accused of wrongful accounting. over the last 15 months — wrongful accounting. over the last 15 months alone, february 2012 to may 2013, — 15 months alone, february 2012 to may 2013, more than £39,000 is deemed — may 2013, more than £39,000 is deemed to be my shortfall, an average — deemed to be my shortfall, an average of £600 per week. this surely— average of £600 per week. this surely cannot be correct. but notifications from the post office say this — notifications from the post office say this is— notifications from the post office say this is correct. this worry has affectedm — say this is correct. this worry has affected... and then there a reduction... and in plans for retirement— reduction... and in plans for retireme

on the 23rd of september 2013, the day that mr griffiths — september 2013, the day that mr griffiths lked in front of a bus, at 5.02, mralan griffiths walked in front of a bus, at 5.02, mr alan bates e—mailed paula _ at 5.02, mr alan bates e—mailed paula vennells, you and some other people _ paula vennells, you and some other people including jo swinson with the subject. _ people including jo swinson with the subject, post office, read this. this— subject, post office, read this. this afternoon i received the following e—mail. a prime example of the thuggery being exerted on defenceless sub—postmasters is the post office denied legal representation are arrogant and uncontrolled post office personnel. despite _ uncontrolled post office personnel. despite assurances from on high that this type _ despite assurances from on high that this type of— despite assurances from on high that this type of thing is in the past, it's this type of thing is in the past, its clear— this type of thing is in the past, it's clear from the post office's actions — it's clear from the post office's actions t

case _ a way of ensuring mr griffiths's case was — a way of ensuring mr griffiths's case was hushed up?— a way of ensuring mr griffiths's case was hushed up? it was nothing i discussed and — case was hushed up? it was nothing i discussed and didn't _ case was hushed up? it was nothing i discussed and didn't leave _ case was hushed up? it was nothing i discussed and didn't leave my - case was hushed up? it was nothing i discussed and didn't leave my head l discussed and didn't leave my head that does— discussed and didn't leave my head that does make _ discussed and didn't leave my head that does make enter— discussed and didn't leave my head that does make enter my— discussed and didn't leave my head that does make enter my head - discussed and didn't leave my head that does make enter my head that discussed and didn't leave my head . that does make enter my head that we will he _ that does make enter my head that we will he going _ that does make enter my head that we will he going down— that does make enter my head that we will be going down that _ that does make enter my head tha

metre grifters killed himself in 2013 —— mr griffiths requests. is the long and the short of _ her to explain the requests. is the long and the short of it _ her to explain the requests. is the long and the short of it you - long and the short of it you procured a settlement of £140,000 payment, which applied to a different type of loss? you ensured there was a nondisclosure agreement attached to that settlement. you agree to the staging of payments to act as an incentive, using money as act as an incentive, using money as a tool to keep the matter hushed up. it was never to keep the matter hushed — it was never to keep the matter hushed up. any settlement agreement was done _ hushed up. any settlement agreement was done with a nondisclosure agreement. why? that was the way they operated. agreement. why? that was the way they operated-— agreement. why? that was the way they operated. take a step back from they operated. take a step back from the answer of — they operated. take a step back from the answer of an _ they operated. take a ste

mr. griffith: after consultation with mrs. torres, we agreed to do a second round of questioning and i recognize mrs. torres for her additional five minutes of questioning. mrs. torres: the claim somehow the select committee didn't investigate the national guard response to the security failures at the capitol january 6, it's been consistent with the facts. as i mentioned, the select committee interviewed 24 individuals and reviewed 37,000 pages of documents related to the national guard. on january 6. their response. and 46 of those pages are in the final report that was issued. if you searched the 46 of those pages were there. if you search the transcripts of these interviews held of these witnesses ahead of the hearing you'll see a significant number of questions used for testimony from the select committee of their foundation. just because there wasn't a court reporter that it didn't happen. as i told you in the back room i was in the balcony while all of this was unfolding. i was also witness to an assault to an officer w

mr. griffith for five minutes. >> of sgt major, a colonel, brigade brigadier general, and a captain. your testimony is compelling, thank you. now to the question generally six, 2021 for each of you gentlemen with major general william walker from 1:49 p.m. through 5:55 p.m. yes or no? >> yes. >> i was. >> yes. >> yes. >> department of defense inspector general report dod ig report alleges secretary of army contacted major general walker multiple times on generate six during that timeframe. some allegations are to call some or three. but the allegations would be the assertions would be three oh 4:00 p.m., 4:30 5:00 p.m. and finally at 5:00 p.m. do any of you recall any one of those calls taking place? what negatives are by way of background i was a political appointee in the admin stretch i was i was also in the army reserve and national guard. now in june of 2070 as a point acting general department of the army the next month right mccarthy was appointed acting secretary of the army had been confirmed as under secretary of the army. ray mccarthy was my friend i told the committee is

griffiths, to sign a non—disclosure agreement, alongside a settlement of 140,000 pounds, after mr griffithsn his accounts. the inquiry counsel, jason beer kc, asked her to explain the request. it's the long and short of it that you had a settlement on the basis of £1a0,000 payment, which figure applies to a completely different type of loss, you ensured that there was a nondisclosure agreement attached to that settlement and you agreed to the staging of payments to act as an incentive using money as a tool to keep the matter hushed up? it was never to keep the matter hushed up. any settlement agreement that the post office ever entered into was done with a nondisclosure agreement. why? because that was just the way they operated. take a step back, from the answer of an automaton. why does the post office always insist on nondisclosure? because that was how they tied up the agreement. but why? i just accepted that that was the standard approach. for all agreements. why does the post office always insist on nondisclosure? they wanted to draw a line under that engagement. that was how they had

did you see anything unsavoury in using money as a way of ensuring mr griffiths' case was hushed up?ad. then, just before lunch, a sign that questions are getting tougher. are you represented today in the sense that there is a lawyer in the room who can assist? yes. the postmasters' barristers got straight to it. you're worried, aren't you, that if you now admit that you knew about remote access way back in 2010, you will be liable for perjury, isn't that the truth? no. are you being dishonest about this now, or were you inexcusably negligent at the time? i am not being dishonest about it. you were deliberately suppressing the truth, you were allowing decent people to be prosecuted on the back of a flawed it system, weren't you? no, i would never do that. you would do anything to protect the post office. no, that is not right. and had there been any repercussions after a judge found she'd misled him, defending the post office? did you get your bonus that year, in 2019, mrs van den bogerd? yes. i see. so, despite a finding in the high court that basically you lied to the high court, y

she also confirmed that mr griffiths' widow was ordered to sign a gag order in return for staggered compensation.— know where it's gone. former sub-postmistress _ know where it's gone. former sub- postmistress jo - know where it's gone. formerj sub-postmistress jo hamilton know where it's gone. former - sub-postmistress jo hamilton has sub—postmistressjo hamilton has also been central to the drama. she also been central to the drama. she also said there have been no clear answers. i'm quite happy to wait, i think the truth will come out in the end, whether it comes out in a court of law, wejust end, whether it comes out in a court of law, we just have to wait. but i'm patient. described by victims as an intimidating bully, she time and again denied those claims and how essential she was to how this scandal unfolded. don't be fooled by the weather, it is spring, which for many, usually means it's time for a clean and spruce up, including for one of london's most famous landmarks, tower bridge. a team of specialist window cleaners, with a good head for heights, have been abseiling from the tower�*

did you see anything unsavoury in using money as a way of ensuring mr griffith's case was hushed up? would be . going down that road. this was the first i heard of it from roderick. - and the fact that he said i it was accepted then ijust allowed it to continue. he says hashed out because the post office agreed to stage payments in return for conte of devonshire. the widow has two sign a nondisclosure agreement and drop other legal legal claims. subsequently, there were questions from the victims lawyers themselves, their questions were far more impassioned unless clinical because they represent the victims whose were destroyed by this. one lawyer brought up the fact that van de bogerd was found to have misled the court and so he accused her of lying under oath, something that she denies. he questioned how she could have missed a key e—mail about the integrity of the horizon system in 2010. she says that she genuinely didn't read it and this is how he iraq reacted. didn't read it and this is how he iraq reacted-— didn't read it and this is how he irat reacted. , , ., ,., iraq reacted

mr. griffith. >> that wasn't where i was going, but here we go. the gentle lady is correct. the administration did not announce a ban on these exports. the announce they would not allow any new permits, which in essence, shuts down all the potential because everybody's afraid to go forward with these products or projects, whether it be facilities to export pipelines export, et cetera. the gentle lady is correct on one part, but future lng gas is coming to a quick cult because of the announcement and it's not actual policy yet and hopefully there will be a more refined statement to come. let me get back to where i was going. to chairman houston, commissioner myers, and commissioner pridemore, the powerplant 2.0 could retire many generating units permanently, or, excuse me, prematurely. would you agree that the increasing amounts of dispatch bowl generation and environmental regulations are making a request for powerplant operation waivers more and more likely, yes or no? >> yes. >> probably. >> okay. >> again, do you believe that the 90 day as needed waivers are the best appr