fitton is part equal watch we do not know which grand jury tom fitton who s a close trump ally appeared in today that s because tom fitton has interests with both specia tom fitton drafted a statement for president trump declaring how he won the election though he hadn t won the election yet. the draft statement which was sent on october 31st declares we had an election today and i won. and the fitton memo specifically indicates a plan that only the votes counted by the election dayhe deadline and there is no election day deadline would matter. an election day just after 5:00 p.m. mr. fitton indicated he spoke with the president about the statement. tom fitton actually suggested trump could claim victory by saying he won all the votes counted by a made up election day deadline and ignore all the other ballots, which is on the mar-a-lago front cnn reported it was tom fitton in trump s ear saying you can keep all the documents, they re yours, you own them. which turns out
different rationale, which is a hunt for a basis to accuse the hillary clinton campaign of mp defrauding the government by essentially framing donald trump for collusion. it was hillary s fault that people, you know, suspected trump and russia and wanted to knowte more about those connections and was the theory, right, they were pursuing. and that was a criminal investigation. they were going to a judge unsuccessfully trying to get something called a d-order to get into private e-mails and eventually using grand jury powers to get into private e-mails of a george soros aid. you can t do that unless it s a criminal investigation. ultimaty they do bring two narrow indictments which durham uses to insiniate this conspiracy he was unable to prove aun charge and bothf thos cases ended in very swift acquittals and collapsed in court. to his point as well when this thing started it wasn t a criminal investigation so didn t need a solid basis, i could just
led with like kyle rittenhouse are so disgusting, someone has done something so disgusting and egregious and yet there wasn t a case just like that before and we re not able to hold law enforcement accountable somehow. we throw our hands up because of the doctrine of qualified immunity that people get really outraged about it. so that s why there are folks who say we ve got to get rid of it. i can t tell you quite what the argument is about why we ve got to keep it. i can tell you the argument advanced is law enforcement have to do their job but no science of law enforcement supports that as a reasonable conclusion, but that s essentially what it is and that s part of what the argument has been about with regards to the justice policing. and basically qualified immunity the advent of qualified immunity though there are cases that strengthen it in the 80s, it starts in the civil rights era, hmm, which is when people start saying what police are doing to civilians is not right and t