And conservatives dont want to be around each other and so they have to spread out, you may not see this from like the ivory towers of your law school, but it makes the actual people in this country when the president calls you dont get to interrupt me on this time. Let me also suggest that when you invoke the president s sons name here. When you try to make a little joke out of referencing trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument. It makes you look mean. It makes you look like youre attacking someones family. The minor child of the president of the United States. So lets see if we can get into the facts, to all of the witnesses. If you have personal knowledge of a single Material Fact in the schiff report, please raise your hand. And let the record reflect no personal knowledge of a single fact. And you know what . That continues on the tradition that we saw from adam schiff where ambassador taylor could not identify an Impeachable Offense. Mr. Kent never met with the
pr
he took steps to hide behind them. he was so hell bent on doing this he got involved with fingerprints. he was a hands-on conspirator according to the indictment, which has evidence of trump placing calls, demanding people join the coup. this is new from just what we got late last night. calls to the georgia senate leader, calls to georgia s republican governor who today spoke it again about trump s lies on this score. calls to georgia s attorney general, the top law enforcement official. and calls and efforts to get other critical voting officials to somehow join his out-of-sate coup option. now, in fairness to donald trump or any candidate scrutinizing their own results or loss, let s be clear those calls alone, absent everything else, would not legally be indictable. that is, i don t think a
bringing you on, is mr. tacopina who has been on this program and others, you know, with diplomatic language, they have all but said in more than one forum, we re trying, we have a challenging client. and that doesn t mean he s guilty or not, as you said, he may say things that complicate the case and the process may find that he went over the line and threatened someone in the way that s indictable, but they all but said that. they re also saying tonight, and i mentioned a new filing, that the protective order which is kind of a subset issue, like before we get to the trial, how you deal with the evidence, really tramples what they call the first amendment rights of someone who is also a public figure and candidates. they say, quote, in a trial about first amendment rights, government, that s jack smith, seeks to restrict first amendment rights. worse, it does so against its administrations, that s bringing up jack smith he s part of
how most of the plots then involved accounts that were at a minimum unconstitutional that means not allowed, don t work, whether or not anybody goes to prison. then some were actually appearing to be indictable as a criminal conspiracy. so this is what we showed you. this runs back over a year. people say, do facts matter? does reporting matter? i don t have to prove to you this week, yeah, sometimes it really does. because for the first time, we can now update this same report to show you that thedoj s jack smith indicted defendant donald trump on conspiracies across five, five of those long-running plots that we first reported. that s one of the things we learned this week. doj and the special counsel found facts supporting this conspiracy view of the case and determined that it is provable in court. while the defendant remains legally presumed innocent and will get his day in court.