this guy is repeating something in such a fashion that we don t think he s a real person. you can understand that. i think the larger point here is this is a nuisance lawsuit. i think he just wants attention. he s a guy who said president obama was somehow wiretapping donald trump. no truth to it. he now says they are making fun they are making fun of his mom or something. he didn t like it. emily: a parody account. juan: i think that emily is on target. they are a private company. but they are on the hot seat with regard to hate speech and a lot of the conspiracy theories that foment violence and anger. people have a right to say hey, why don t you regulate that? i don t think this is what devin nunes is talking about. jesse: to be clear, obama officials were wiretapping. juan: stopped, get out of here. jesse: it s been recorded, even in the new york times. dana, is this frivolous? dana: it s interesting because for those of us who ve
high-profile person paid to get rid of a nuisance lawsuit. there is a presumption of innocence in he criminal case and every criminal investigation, and never a presumption against that without evidence that acts are done for purely criminal reasons. and don t forget, it was citizen donald trump s money that was used and not campaign money for whatever might have occurred before he was president, unlike another president impeached for acts that occurred with a young intern in the oval office while he was president. so far 30 million taxpayer dollars for this nonsense is nonsense. especially because barack obama was in a position to actually do something about so-called russian interference but did nothing except to tell putin to knock it off.
it wouldn t be the first time a high-profile person paid to get rid of a nuisance lawsuit. there is a presumption of innocence in he criminal case and every criminal investigation, and never a presumption against that without evidence that acts are done for purely criminal reasons. and don t forget, it was citizen donald trump s money that was used and not campaign money for whatever might have occurred before he was president, unlike another president impeached for acts that occurred with a young intern in the oval office while he was president. so far 30 million taxpayer dollars for this nonsense is nonsense. especially because barack obama was in a position to actually do something about so-called russian interference but did nothing except to tell putin to
high-profile person paid to get rid of a nuisance lawsuit. there is a presumption of innocence in he criminal case and every criminal investigation, and never a presumption against that without evidence that acts are done for purely criminal reasons. and don t forget, it was citizen donald trump s money that was used and not campaign money for whatever might have occurred before he was president, unlike another president impeached for acts that occurred with a young intern in the oval office while he was president. so far 30 million taxpayer dollars for this nonsense is nonsense. especially because barack obama was in a position to actually do something about so-called russian interference but did nothing except to tell putin to
corporations in our country. he came after you guys, he said what you guys were doing was illegal. you were abusing campaign finance laws. yes, the loss of investigation. the u.s. attorney, none of it was true, it was day for night. the new york post wrote scores of articles about this, the whole thing was essentially fiction. but he s so deep pocketed we had to pay him to go away. it was a nuisance lawsuit that was cheaper to settle than pay our lawyers. he could claim another notch, he s trying to get one. i think we can all predict two things about his work for governor christie. taxpayers are going to spend a small fortune paying him. he s not going to find any wrongdoing by the governor. it s not an independent investigation. he s in transit. we will bring you updates if he