Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
She's been under a lot of stress lately. And give her credit, her politics underwent a field revision....
FBI storms Mar a Lago
- Thread starter Fakenews
- Start date
She's been under a lot of stress lately. And give her credit, her politics underwent a field revision....
Bus Driver
Bacon Quality Control Specialist
He could be praying the odor-shield on the Depends is up to the task.
Yes, I'd cut her some slack.
Leeroy Jenkins
Super Anarchist
By the time she sat for the committee she probably hadn't had a good nights sleep in close to two years.
SloopJonB
Super Anarchist
Even a buck a year from each of them is some serious coin.
And if they are stupid enough to still be Trumpers he's gonna get a lot more than that from them.
Blue Crab
benthivore
Or she's a genuine American woman who votes Republican and has integrity. I'll bet a cool M that she doesn't have a tattoo of TFG on her back.
"Hutchinson said that [lawyer] Passantino told her not to lie. “I want to make this clear to you: Stefan never told me to lie. He specifically told me, ‘I don’t want you to perjure yourself, but ‘I don’t recall’ isn’t perjury. They don’t know want you can and can’t recall,’” she testified." CNN
"I don't recall" is perjury if you do recall, innit?
billy backstay
Backstay, never bought a suit, never went to Vegas
Which is exactly why she gave Stefan the old heave ho, and got her own Attorney!!
Swimsailor
Super Anarchist
I have lost any hope of that.
billy backstay
Backstay, never bought a suit, never went to Vegas
Oh, there will be charges levied against Trump, for sure!! But, I am also pretty sure he will weasel out of any jail time, or other painful consequences, but I hope I am wrong......
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
Yes and yes.
The determining factor will be 1- if she still loyally votes for the trumpiest Republican in the race, on the basis of the hateful nonsense they shout constantly, or if she has actually learned something about "branding" and it's relevance to democracy... the hard-core trumpalos are utterly incapable of ever learning.
and 2- if she has any tattoos, of course
Blue Crab
benthivore
Asked and answered.
MauiPunter
Will sail for food
Blue Crab
benthivore
Yet another Cassidy Hutchison
Blue Crab
benthivore
This one teaches hot yoga in Bristol, VA. I'm thinking road trip.
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
I wonder if she knows how to cook French Toast On A Boat
veni vidi vici
Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
- 8,770
- 2,083
Biden's IRS goons dropped by Twitter Files journalist Matt Taibbi's house while he was testifying before Congress ... I wonder why?
While one of the journalists behind the Twitter Files was testifying about his finding in front of Congress, he was also being harassed by government goons who showed up to his house unannounced.
notthebee.com
“Remember this: This is the Presidential Records Act. I have the right to take stuff,” Trump said, adding: “I have the right to take stuff. I have the right to look at stuff. But they have the right to talk, and we have the right to talk.”
Sean Hannity’s attempt to coach Trump backfires — again
Donald Trump’s long-awaited return to Fox News’s airwaves on Monday night after a months-long absence occasioned an altogether familiar exercise: His longtime ally Sean Hannity helpfully tries to coach him to give the right answers, and Trump utterly fails to oblige. A telling exchange results, but not in the way the host intends.
This time, the subject was the Mar-a-Lago documents search.
In a lengthy interview that often landed on Trump’s legal troubles, Hannity dug in on a big one. He suggested both that Trump wouldn’t deliberately possess the documents and that he didn’t prevent federal authorities from searching for them. In both cases, Trump repeatedly declined to confirm Hannity’s thesis.
The most striking exchange came on the question of possession.
“I can’t imagine you ever saying: ‘Bring me some of the boxes that we brought back from the White House. I’d like to look at them,’” Hannity said. “Did you ever do that?”
Trump didn’t directly answer the question, saying merely: “I would have the right to do that. There’s nothing wrong with it.”
So Hannity tried again: “But I know you. I don’t think you would do it.”
It turns out Trump would.
“Well, I don’t have a lot of time. But I would have the right to do that,” Trump said, before adding that, in fact, “I would do that. There would be nothing wrong.”
His ally quickly tried to pivot to another topic — “All right, let me move on,” Hannity said — but Trump plowed forward.
“Remember this: This is the Presidential Records Act. I have the right to take stuff,” Trump said, adding: “I have the right to take stuff. I have the right to look at stuff. But they have the right to talk, and we have the right to talk.”
Whether Trump deliberately took classified documents and knew he possessed them is a significant question that looms over the special counsel’s investigation. That’s because it’s a crime both to intentionally remove them from where they are supposed to be and withhold them when the government requests them. There is evidence that he was aware of what he had, but here Trump acknowledges that reviewing documents he took from the White House was something he “would” do — even as he doesn’t explicitly acknowledge that he did.
The other big pertinent legal question is whether Trump obstructed the effort to recover those documents.
This is where the August Mar-a-Lago search comes into play. Hannity tried to suggest that Trump was forthcoming and transparent with the authorities in allowing them to conduct a search before they did so without his permission in August — the implication being that the unscheduled August search was unnecessary. But again, Trump wasn’t on the same page.
“Did you ever deny the FBI any access that they requested to come back to that room or any other room?” Hannity asked, in the first of four attempts to get Trump to say he never denied access.
Rather than say that, Trump merely suggested that such access was not requested.
“The FBI could have taken the documents if they would have asked,” he said.
He added, at another point: “We would have given them the stuff had they asked for it.”
When Hannity asked a third time, Trump said that “the lawyers gave them access to the room” where the documents were stored. But he again didn’t address the idea that a request to actually search for the documents was denied.
Hannity kept pushing for a direct answer: “The question that was key to me is, like, they already had access, and I was asking you if you ever denied them access?”
Trump again talked around the question, saying he didn’t know why they conducted the surprise search and that “I would have said yes” to a pre-Mar-a-Lago-search request.
The fact that Trump wouldn’t say whether a request was denied could be significant, because the government has flatly said it was indeed prevented from looking through the documents.
Trump’s legal team had said in an August filing that he had told the agents during a June visit: “Whatever you need, just let us know.” It also said an agent had asked to “inspect” the room and that the request was granted. But it didn’t address whether agents were allowed to actually look at the documents in the room or conducted such an inspection.
The government soon indicated that the omission was deliberate. It said that agents were “allowed only a brief view of the storage room” and weren’t allowed to view the contents of the boxes.
“Critically … the former President’s counsel explicitly prohibited government personnel from opening or looking inside any of the boxes that remained in the storage room, giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained,” the Justice Department said in another filing.
Hannity is right that this is indeed a “key” question. It just didn’t result in the answer he was looking for. And in that regard, it had company Monday night.
Sean Hannity’s attempt to coach Trump backfires — again
Donald Trump’s long-awaited return to Fox News’s airwaves on Monday night after a months-long absence occasioned an altogether familiar exercise: His longtime ally Sean Hannity helpfully tries to coach him to give the right answers, and Trump utterly fails to oblige. A telling exchange results, but not in the way the host intends.
This time, the subject was the Mar-a-Lago documents search.
In a lengthy interview that often landed on Trump’s legal troubles, Hannity dug in on a big one. He suggested both that Trump wouldn’t deliberately possess the documents and that he didn’t prevent federal authorities from searching for them. In both cases, Trump repeatedly declined to confirm Hannity’s thesis.
The most striking exchange came on the question of possession.
“I can’t imagine you ever saying: ‘Bring me some of the boxes that we brought back from the White House. I’d like to look at them,’” Hannity said. “Did you ever do that?”
Trump didn’t directly answer the question, saying merely: “I would have the right to do that. There’s nothing wrong with it.”
So Hannity tried again: “But I know you. I don’t think you would do it.”
It turns out Trump would.
“Well, I don’t have a lot of time. But I would have the right to do that,” Trump said, before adding that, in fact, “I would do that. There would be nothing wrong.”
His ally quickly tried to pivot to another topic — “All right, let me move on,” Hannity said — but Trump plowed forward.
“Remember this: This is the Presidential Records Act. I have the right to take stuff,” Trump said, adding: “I have the right to take stuff. I have the right to look at stuff. But they have the right to talk, and we have the right to talk.”
Whether Trump deliberately took classified documents and knew he possessed them is a significant question that looms over the special counsel’s investigation. That’s because it’s a crime both to intentionally remove them from where they are supposed to be and withhold them when the government requests them. There is evidence that he was aware of what he had, but here Trump acknowledges that reviewing documents he took from the White House was something he “would” do — even as he doesn’t explicitly acknowledge that he did.
The other big pertinent legal question is whether Trump obstructed the effort to recover those documents.
This is where the August Mar-a-Lago search comes into play. Hannity tried to suggest that Trump was forthcoming and transparent with the authorities in allowing them to conduct a search before they did so without his permission in August — the implication being that the unscheduled August search was unnecessary. But again, Trump wasn’t on the same page.
“Did you ever deny the FBI any access that they requested to come back to that room or any other room?” Hannity asked, in the first of four attempts to get Trump to say he never denied access.
Rather than say that, Trump merely suggested that such access was not requested.
“The FBI could have taken the documents if they would have asked,” he said.
He added, at another point: “We would have given them the stuff had they asked for it.”
When Hannity asked a third time, Trump said that “the lawyers gave them access to the room” where the documents were stored. But he again didn’t address the idea that a request to actually search for the documents was denied.
Hannity kept pushing for a direct answer: “The question that was key to me is, like, they already had access, and I was asking you if you ever denied them access?”
Trump again talked around the question, saying he didn’t know why they conducted the surprise search and that “I would have said yes” to a pre-Mar-a-Lago-search request.
The fact that Trump wouldn’t say whether a request was denied could be significant, because the government has flatly said it was indeed prevented from looking through the documents.
Trump’s legal team had said in an August filing that he had told the agents during a June visit: “Whatever you need, just let us know.” It also said an agent had asked to “inspect” the room and that the request was granted. But it didn’t address whether agents were allowed to actually look at the documents in the room or conducted such an inspection.
The government soon indicated that the omission was deliberate. It said that agents were “allowed only a brief view of the storage room” and weren’t allowed to view the contents of the boxes.
“Critically … the former President’s counsel explicitly prohibited government personnel from opening or looking inside any of the boxes that remained in the storage room, giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained,” the Justice Department said in another filing.
Hannity is right that this is indeed a “key” question. It just didn’t result in the answer he was looking for. And in that regard, it had company Monday night.
badlatitude
Soros-backed
- 33,427
- 7,182
"I would do that" = "I did that".
