that tweet, be there, we will be wild. it was a tweet that set up a violent chain reaction that resulted in a deadly attack on our government. cnn is not reporting the special counsel is asking witnesses about a contentious oval office meeting on december 18th, 2020. more than a month after the election, and mere days after the electoral college made official the decision of the american people. in short, that trump had lost the election. in that moment, the disgraced ex-president had two paths. he had door number one, admit head on that his campaign met the end of the line, keep in pace simple peaceful transfer of power. behind door number two, not just fall, but vaults into the abyss, commit to antidemocratic measures. of course, we all know the rest of the story. on this night in december, this crucial juncture, the six-hour cage match essentially unfolded deep inside the white house. on one side, it would summon trump s own white house team, quote, crazy. as you know, peo
an emergency rescue. the move is aimed the mat halti investors panic. turmoil swept the global banking industry. now credit suisse lost 25% of its shares despite a $50 billion l loan. gina, will this ubs move to halt the panic, will this work? good question. it certainly should help to secure some amount of comfort in at least europe about whether we were going to see an orderly resolution to credit suisse. i think this was hanging over markets. there s a lot of rush to get this done before asian markets opened. the fact they ve successfully done that i think should inject some amount of sense of comfort that these sort of things can reach a time lly resolution and authorities are on top of these problems. and how are the problems at credit suisse different than doomed the two others that failed last week? the think credit suisse s problems were many and predated a lot of the fed s moves. we had seen scandals in credit suisse and problems in their banking arm. we saw th
If donald trump were to win the 2024 election, he would not be the first president to win then lose then win again. the first and only president so far to serve two nonconsecutive terms with a 22nd and 24th president of the united states, grover cleveland. in 1884, cleveland ran for president on the democratic ticket. and just weeks before the election, it was uncovered by reporters that cleveland fathered a child out of wedlock. it was revealed that ten years prior, cleveland had sexually assaulted a woman named maria, resulting in the birth of a child which was a massive scandal at the time. despite efforts to play it down by his campaign, republicans saw this vulnerability and ran with it, making campaign posters like this one, and chanting at rallies, mom, mom, where s my pa, gone to the white house, ha
And convicted for that. finally, when you look at patrick byrne, he had a long- term relationship with a woman named maria, who was convicted of being an unregistered agent of the government of russia. after she served her sentence, he gave her money to help her land, i think that is the words of the effect that he said. she then went on to work for rt again, some video of him when he was in solitary confinement. she went on to run for the russian parliament and won election. the three of them in this really critical meeting were things like invoking martial law, using the military to seize , you had three who had these long-term connections to the government of russia. set aside the criminal issues, the interest of smith, the interest of the committee. when you look at this national security for active, it is absolutely chilling.
On the intensity. the word that is bleeped out, trump thinks famous people can touch woman. tell me about the emotion between these two sides. nicole, when i watch that, it is really similar to the january 3rd meeting in the oval office when the president contemplates replacing his acting attorney general. the same criteria is put forward. at least he will fight for me. at least he is willing to do something, that is what the president says as a basis to replace his leadership to the department justice with an unqualified acting the currency there, who s going to fight? that is the wrong criteria, right? it should be, well who has effects? who has the evidence? who has the better argument as