issue, only this time her answer was different. she said that she had been asked the question a million times and the answer, quote, remains the same. but, in fact, the first time, instead of saying the president had never spoken to hunter about his business dealings, she said this. the president was never in business with his son. so on wednesday, phil wegman from real clear politics pointed out the inconsistency, but john pierr pierre insisted it was the same. i just want to clear this up once for all. the president has said he s never discussed overseas business dealings with his son, but the white house now says that the president has never been in business with his son. so why the updated language? which statement is true? or is it semantics and they are both true? as i stated on monday, when i was asked this question multiple times, nothing has changed. nothing has changed. nothing has changed on this. and so you can ask me a million different ways on this quest
smerconish in philadelphia. in september of 2019, joe biden was asked how many$#ursqj he ha spoken to son hunter about his overseas business activities. the then candidate s answer a was this. i have never spoken to my son about that. that has remained his answer until this week. on monday white house press secretary was asked about this issue, only this time her answer was different. she said that she had been asked the question a million times and the answer remains the same. but in fact the first time instead of saying the president had never spoken to hunter about his business dealings, she said this. the president was never in business with his son. so on wednesday, phil wegman pointed out the insistent sit, but she insisted the answer was the same. i just want to clear this up once if and are all. the president has said he s never discussed overseas business dealings with his son, but the white house now says that the president has never been in business with
Is the document that allegedly donald trump held up at bedminster when he was no longer president related to an iranian war plan he showed to others. there s an audio tape of him discussing it. donald trump said there was no document. it turns out there was. doj charged that. there were also two new objection of justice count cos that relate to this not just to move the boxes around. that was already charged. but now it s charging obstruction on top of obstruction because the allegation is they tried to delete the internal surveillance video footage. so there is some new problems for donald trump beyond the addition of a new codefendant. where i m coming from, i think that material would have come into trial against donald trump. it strikes me that jack smith wants the public to know the whole story and therefore, reveals more than he needs to reveal. and something else. the dates, the times, the locations, the speech, what is left for there to be a factual
War plan he showed to others. there s an audio tape of him discussing it. donald trump said there was no document. it turns out there was. doj charged that. there were also two new object construction of justice counts that relate to this not just to move the boxes around. that was already charged. but now it s charging obstruction on top of obstruction because the allegation is they tried to delete the internal surveillance video footage. so there is some new problems for donald trump beyond the addition of a new codefendant. where i m coming from, i think that material would have nonetheless come into trial against donald trump. it strikes me that jack smith wants the public to know the whole story and therefore, reveals more than he needs to reveal. and something else. the dates, the times, the locations, the speech, what is left for there to be a factual dispute about?
And his team could be getting to a decision on potential charges here? i think it could be fairly quick. jack smith will need to get up to speed, you want to take some time to familiarize himself with the evidence, especially since this is not his team. these are folks who have been working on this for a long time, and he will want to take his time to get to know them a little bit, as well as the case. but here is the one thing that may not be finished in terms of the investigation. merrick garland was so deliberate in talking about part of the special counsels agreement being obstruction related to the documents case, so that means that they are looking at charging obstruction not only for the year and a half or so of the back and forth and potential lying about having the documents and what they were turning over but remember the evidence that came out recently about what happened at mar-a-lago, surveillance camera footage, people moving things in an out of the storage room, where