Jesse things are so bad for biden that he is in a brawl with the New York Times. Behind the scenes the paper of records relation with the president is reportedly tense. Beset by grudges and a general lack of trust after publishing a slew of pieces on joe bidens age and his son, hunter. They are calling to reporters at the times arrogant and stubborn for trying too hard to be impartial. And other words, suck up to me more. Some reporters say they have been cut off by their white house sources completely. Think about it. A democrat president is icing out the times over negative coverage. The times hasnt even covered uncle bo. But the Times Publisher sees it a different way. Is retribution for breaking tradition and not giving the paper of record an interview. The New York Times had this to say. Quote, for anyone who understands the role of the free press in a democracy, it should be troubling that President Biden has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journali
Things are so bad forfoe is biden that hes in a brawl with the New York Times i behind the scenes, the paper of records relation with the Presiden Scet is reportedly tense, beset by grudges, and a general lack of trust. Trus after Publishing A Slewblishi Of Piecengs on joe bidens age and his son hunter biden, world is calling the reporterse at the times arrogant and stubborn for trying too for. O be impartialti stubbor in other words, up to me more. Some reporters say theyve been cut off by their white house. Sources completely thin bk about it. The democrat president is icing out the times over negativeat presi coverage. The times hasnt even covered uncle boosie, but Times Publisher sulzberger sees in a different way its retribution for Breakinga Diff Tradition Ant giving the paper of record an interview. Say. The New York Times had this to say, quote, for anyones th who understands the role of the free press in a democracy, it should be Troublin Gbide that President Biden has so acti
Admitting that these facts were so inextricably intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett, that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpreted his statements. Please to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x. This would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial, we believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the us Supreme Court, that what were talking about is absolute immunity. Yes. But absolute immunity just for a president s official acts in office. I think thats a crucial distinction. And
Hi, everyone. Happy friday. Were monitoring the ongoing criminal trial of donald trump. Were on day iegt eight of of this election Interference Hush Money Trial. Today brought the introduction of websites number two and three for the prosecution. Right this moment, the prosecution is questioning gary farro. He was Michael Cohens banker at First Republic bank. He set up the Home Equity Line Of Credit through which Michael Cohen paid stormy and was reimbursed by donald trump. Its the financial transaction thats at the heart of all of this. The second witness was a woman by the name of rona graph. You may not know the name, but she was in the room for jirs about everything. Shes Donald Trumps longtime assistant. She worked at the Trump Organization for 34 years. She also noted that she was on the stand because she had been subpoenaed and that the Trump Organization is paying for her attorneys. In a very brief line of questioning from the prosecution, alvin braggs team had her authenticate
Im period in question. I thought in many what we did a concession at all was Michael Dreeben essentially admitting the attorney for the special counsels office, essentially admitting that these facts were so inextricably intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett, that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpret for his statements at least. Well, and to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x this would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial. We believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the