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
Intelligent extra ter rest yells. something something i can t state. biologics came with some of these recoveries, yeah. were they, i guess, human or nonhuman biologics? nonhuman and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program of people i talked to that are currently still on the program. the hearing received sharp criticism. in a linkedin posting by sean kirk patri w runs the all e n anomaly resolution office, kirk patrick wrote, i cannot let yesterday s hearing pass without sharing now insulting it was to the officers of the department of defense and intelligence, a community who chose to join, many are with not unreasonable anxieties about the career risks this would enil. my next guest has unique