apparently. so i don t know, lawrence. i m eager to see what allred has to. say i should not have tipped my first question like that. have a great. so thank you. john douglass was the tucker carlson of 19th century london. he was, in every way, a terrible person. when his father died he inherited his father s absurd title of marcus of queensbury at age 14. tucker carlson s upbringing is the 20th century american version of lauren queensbury s up bringing. they were both born rich enough to never have to work day in their lives. they were both students who never achieved any high academic distinction. like many of the most influential voices in the history of right-wing american media, wrestling by and rush hannity, queensbury never finished college. he was so disliked what he is not allowed to be a member of the house of lords. his first wife successfully sued him on the grounds of divorce on the grounds of adultery. he he lived on the grounds of hatred, the ful
those recommendations. but as the recommendation is to charge the former president, who would be very hard for the attorney general to disregard that having brought it on for the purpose of his expertise. so here you have the top prosecutors could make that recommendation, wanting to evaluate the witnesses testimony, credibility, and pence of course is thinking in the back of his head of the front of his head, what is this going to mean to my presidential campaign? and so special counsel is going to want to see how forthcoming was the vice president, how much does it seem like he is shading things so he s not that critical of the presidency doesn t hurt his presidential campaign? in an ideal world you would have to worry about something like that, but pence has demonstrated time and again near the national interest is secondary at this point in his career to his political ambition. he did the right thing on january 6th. but he has been essentially, i
to that federal and dance covina was one of those trump people who never would have been employed by any other presidential campaign or any other president. he went from being donald trump s golf caddie to being a deputy chief of staff in the trump white house. that led him to being forced to testify under oath to the grand jury yesterday. cnn is reporting a special press jack smith was present in the jury room for five hours of mike pence s under oath testimony. that is the only time jack smith has been reported to be present for the grand jury testimony. cnn is also reporting that the calamari family is now involved in jack smith s investigation, with matthew calamari and his son, matthew calamari jr. expected to testify jackson s grand jury tomorrow about the video recording system and donald trump s florida home where the fbi found donald trump illegally prince possessed classified documents. the caller marries were
special counsel wanted answered? have you been answered so that he can make the most informed judgment? this does seem by virtue of the significance of the witnesses and the pace with which they are coming before the grand jury, it does seem to be reaching a crescendo where soon special counsel s gonna have to make a decision and i think he wants to be there to here for himself before making that judgment. yeah, it seems to me that if you have embiid or must brew spawns ability to recommend a prosecution of donald trump, with mike fantz pence is a witness, you re going to want to be in a grand jury room for that one opportunity you re going to have to see mike pence testifying under oath and projecting for yourself what will it be like to have mike pence under oath in a trial of this case? i think that s exactly right. and remember, he later commendations, the attorney general, whether to accept
of a u.s. attorney boss of a team of assistant u.s. attorneys. this is the only instance where we are aware of where there has been any reporting, but jack smith decided to be in the grand jury room himself when vice president pence was questioned for five hours. what do you take from that? probably the nearest analogy because that kind of circumstance just doesn t happen, is how often does the u.s. attorney, the leader of a particular office, sitting in on a grand jury testimony? and that s very rare particularly in a big office. but what i think it means is that this is a witness of singular importance and that the person is going to only have to make the decision to recommend charges or not recommend charges to the attorney general, wants to see the credibility of the witness, watch c directly for themselves, what does this witness have to say, how persuasive are they, are all the questions that the