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
Means nit. the message goes on to say i will make certain that the m sitting next to mendvery person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. i m sitting here waiting for the call with my father. the president has denied he was sitting with hunter when the message was sent. was hunter really with his father? who knows? maybe hunter was bluffing to impress his business associates, but it continues to beg the question of whether, contrary to a father never discussing his son s business, the picture is more complicated. and it was in this context that hunter went to federal court in delaware on wednesday for what was expected to be the routine acceptance by a judge of a plea agreement. hunter came ready to plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and avert prosecution on a gun charge by enrolling in a two-year diversion program for non-violent offenders, but the judge said no.