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
And i think it s utterly important that the statement of facts that was represented there in court, it actually stated that he miscategorized expenses. i don t know how anyone could consider a miscategorization the marmot, you are claiming you were blacklisted it, yet you are ducting that as a business expense on your tax returns. why is david weiss not saying that he was thwarted? i read the letters he sent to congress. he s not in sync with what you and shapley have offered. i have no idea what his motivation is. but what i can tell you is that his account of what happened is changing. gary, our account is not.