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
That will really contribute to public perceptions of piling on. if jack smith has georgia covered, then why did fani willis need to pile on? and i think these charges are well justified. i think if he charges january 6th, it will be well justified. but why did it take two and a half plus years? why did it take us until after donald trump announced his canned aes candidacy? i believe doj could have charged these cases a long time ago. the fact that these are coming now as the election really heats up is going to only fuel that public perception. i feel the same way about willis case in georgia. people are going to say this pertains to the perfect phone call that trump made in the aftermath of the last cycle. we re within three weeks of the first debate in this cycle. thank you for being here. always appreciate your expertise. thank you. up ahead, words i have never