Selfridges massachusetts. Love them others loath them either way her Business Model could revolutionize the first industry. Pamela always keeps a close eye on the road when shes driving looking for roadkill. In springtime in the u. S. State of massachusetts many wild animals come out of winter hibernation and get hit by cars during this period pamela carefully scans the road for dead animals. From here out. So this is all forest and fields and so on so the animals that
live in this area come down into Town Possums Skunks Reptilians particularly coyotes for cats to sit in for the food sources but. This is the spot where they meet the Chain Link Fence the water the houses and the road. Its estimated that in the u. S. One million animals are killed by cars the. Animal Rights Groups are outraged by this. Pamela road kill is good for business. Provided the fur can be recovered. Oh no i cant use this. Oh my god. Now to what i mean about bunnies getting totally squashed. Bunnies tend to not f
my goal ultimately is to change the furnace tree for the better so that they can stay profitable and also that their clientele doesn t have to feel guilty about far and where it comes from because whether or not it s my opinion or the furrier s opinions a lot of urban living people don t want to be associated with caging and so i m trying to be help the fur industry be responsive to that that critique. pamela doesn t mind that some people go ahead and leo post all of her products because she s convinced she s running an ethical business. that s helped out and then kris kross in front of there. and who knows maybe parallels the road kill business really will help revolutionize the fur industry.
and, john, john, it s important to clarify that a perjury trap is a specific thing. that s different than when a and that s a defense that is asserted by defense counsel. so that s something that a defense counsel would allege the prosecutors were doing. that s very different than a person who is being interviewed and doesn t tell the truth. right. that says something that contravenes what other evidence or other witnesses have provided. so there is no evidence on the public record that indicates that any of the individuals who have been prosecuted, convicted or plead guilty in this case have been caught in any kind of perjury trap. there s one other aspect of pamela s reporting worth examining here which is pamela specifically says that this is the same level of interest the special counsel s team has always had in speaking to the president. and pamela doesn t have any
he admitted to the fbi investigators that were talking to him that he knew that they knew what he had said on the phone and that he still chose to tell them lies about and, john, john, it s important to clarify that a perjury trap is a specific thing. that s different than when a and that s a defense that is asserted by defense counsel. so that s something that a defense counsel would allege the prosecutors were doing. that s very different than a person who is being interviewed and doesn t tell the truth. right. that says something that contravenes what other evidence or other witnesses have provided. so there is no evidence on the public record that indicates that any of the individuals who have been prosecuted, convicted or pled guilty in this case have been caught in any kind of perjury trap. there s one other aspect of pamela s reporting worth examining here which is pamela specifically says that this is the same level of interest the special counsel s team has always
president. and pamela doesn t have any indication as we sit here tonight that the special counsel will take legal action to force the issue. that s significant. it is, although i m not sure if it just we simply don t know more about what their next step is. i don t have any reason to think that the special counsel would not be willing to litigate a subpoena to the president. this is a case that, obviously, this massive enterprise investigation involves the president, involves his campaign, involves white house officials. there s no indication, i don t think, that they would not be willing to litigate that. it s, obviously, an issue of constitutional significance. it just means that as far as we know publicly, they haven t reached that step yet. and van jones, when we talked about the take home written exam the president had with the written answers directly about