Going to be pretty straightforward openings. The prosecution was doing Opening Statement 101, walking through the facts that they intended to prove. A lot of bad things can happen during Opening Statements. You have to be careful. You never want to make a promise that you will introduce evidence you end up not producing and if youre on the defense, one of the things youll never hear is youll hear from the defendant that because you have no idea if youre going to call the defendant. The defense here does not have the burden. I didnt expect a very long Opening Statement because whey dont want to make any promises. This seems like a case at the end of the day, theyre going to rely heavily on the burden of Proof And Presumption of innocence. Their strategy appears to be Call Everybody a lying liar, which is an acceptable defense strategy. Early in the morning, kind of laid out the differences that the jury would be having access to if Donald Trump testifies
it does not necessarily mean they know all of the surrounding factors that go into granting a security clearance. his intel chief, the people making these decisions, have much more information that would go into this kind of process than simply do you know this person, was she a good daughter, is he a good son-in-law. there s a lot more factors that go into this. he probably had the benefit of that information when he ultimately made the decision. you would think so, except if the decision was already made that they were not going to get a clearance and then he chose to override that decision. it raises some real questions as to why go against the advice that you re going to be given. i understand why it would be a benefit for him to have them have a clearance. he wants to have them in certain meetings. i get why he wants them to have a clearance. whey don t understand and what i don t think any of us do is what were the concerns that were raised that really stood in the way as an
actually what he is able to do and it s not how do you it matters. if i want to come after you for abuse of power but if it s within his power to do that, it s not abuse of power. that means if you have a power to do something, you can do it any way you want under any circumstances and it s okay? we both know the answer to that is no, don t we? it s up to him. he can grant a security clearance to ivanka and jared whenever he wants to or to anyone else. so should he have let me also back up a little bit, because right now we are basing our entire discussion on reporting from the new york times. yes. and we don t actually know for sure if these sources are reliable. right. that s why the oversight is doing their job. is that actually correct? i have no objections to you asking the question. i think that s a very good that s journalism. it s in general what politicians are doing, but is
with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don t use if you re allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you re pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you.
clearance, he insisted his daughter have it too. pressuring aides, trying to set them up to take the fall for any blow back. that s our reporting new from three sources that contradicts everything the president has been telling us. anthony scaramucci is here. here s what i don t get. he has the right, but he lied about it. why? well, i mean, i don t know the answer to why he lied about it. i can t tell yu he lied about it. i think it was just a bad strategy, bad tactics, or it could have been a reaction to pressure. i mean, he could have been in several meetings where people told him hey, look, don t give this to them, here are the 1,600 reasons why you can t do it, as a result of which he said give it to them. he has a right to do that. you know he has a right to do that. i think the recommendation would have been just tell the truth in the beginning. say listen, people were voting for disrupted change.