and as you point out, he seems to cross the legal line repeatedly in these phone calls. and it also fills in some of the pieces about who was involved in this campaign and what the pattern of corrupting events were. again, this may be a racketeering investigation in georgia based on actions and statements from the district attorney s office. but the white house chief of staff really did turn up bodily in person, surprise, at the audit in georgia when they were auditing the absentee ballots in cobb county. he showed up in person. then the next day he apparently told the president to call the investigator leading that audit while he told her what answer he wanted and how much she d be praised when she produced that correct answer, which was that he mysteriously won the election. i mean, that s just it s starting to read like an elmore leonard book. and you hear on the phone call something you d otherwise never hear in a phone call with the president of the united states.
RIP Marc Sandhaus, Whose Obsession With Cannabis Landraces Finally Bore Flower
yahoo.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from yahoo.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
filing that he had prior to that admitted would be inaccurate. so, a judge can hold a contempt hearing. this is not a case justifying a racketeering indictment. if there is if he was inaccurate, that could be taken up in a contempt hearing, it can be taken up in a bar proceeding. but this is a gigantic rico thing, which is trying to put on eastman s lap everything done by everybody else. and i m not saying everybody else committed a crime. i m agnostic on that question. i m only interested in eastman. you re a lawyer. do you knowingly make false statements in court on behalf of your clients? because this will be up to the court to determine how significant those statements were and what the charges would be for that.