sea to fortify the artificial reefs they ve been together. before the. reef. so it would not be good to one two three four four reeves. should reach be creative. unbelievable for slow before the northeast leg in that video all the fishermen doing for their rocky places to rock music like fifteen thousand going to read to do a line question or need to tell it like a condom are needed to have
he has absolute power to do that. any president does. but why even give them the rue to speculate or worry. i don t think he should. i honestly think he should not ever even consider it or issue a pardon. because i think that sends the wrong message. all right, jen, to you, would a presidential pardon of paul manafort be a gift to democrats? yes, in the sense that it would are continue to energize democratic voters about how outrageous this violation of the rule of law is. and it might make, as we just saw in that piece, some independent voters, some people who are on the line question whether this is a guy who is draining the swamp or if he s a part of this, you know, corrupt washington that they hate so much. i mean, just on that point, bob, to you, the swamp, right, that the president said he was going to drain, paul manafort was convicted by a jury of his peers of some pretty horrible things, right? of defrauding american taxpayers. and the president still called him a go
they can have a room for as little as eight hundred fifty euros a night and a suite very affordable at one and a half thousand. what about that s all your business now it s back to return and suddenly come away from that s actually thank you very much . india supreme court is deciding whether to decriminalize homosexuality the country s apex court is reviewing a ban on gay sex that has been in place for over one hundred fifty yes it s a little chapter in a legal tussle that pits social conservatives against the edgy bt community and their supporters for more on this i m joined now by fredricka baggio from the social media desk welcome. frederica the of course this story this this ruling by the supreme court hearing is really big on social media in india today tell us more what are people saying absolutely so the line question is known as section three hundred seventy seven of india s panel code it dates back to the one nine hundred
but it s kind of a failing scramble. now, there are legal questions to get through here. we ll get some help with those. but the plot line question to get through is for me it s been a sticky question from the very beginning. why was paul manafort offering to work full time for free? at all? especially why was he doing that? given what we now know was going on in his finances at the time? this indictment describes a two-part scheme the first will be the first indictment, the first wrath of charges against him. the first part of the scheme, according to this diernlths takes place between approximately 2006 and 2015. during that time quote manafort and gates generated tens of millions in income as a result of their ukraine work. now the special counsel alleges, most of this was in the first indictment. mueller s office alleges that the money that they made in
the new indictment, pages 20 to 27 to be specific if you are going to read this before you go to bed tonight. they lay out a scene of absolute financial desperation for paul manafort. and we don t know why he was in a state of financial desperation but we do see direct evidence of a scramble, a scramble by manafort on multiple fronts to get his hands on a lot of cash, a lot of money. but it s kind of a failing scramble. now, there are legal questions to get through here and we ll get some help with those but the plot line question to get through for me, it s been a sticky question from the very beginning, why was paul manafort offering to work full time for free? at all? especially why was he doing that given what we know was going on in his finances at the time. this indictment describes a two-part scheme by manafort and