pretext to invade. so we ve heard very specific things. there is no dispute already that the shelling that we saw in that s believed to be one of these. officials are talking about the potential for protests, for riots. they re talking about the potential for assassinations. we heard about potential strikes or manufacturing strikes from drones. ukrainian drones. killing russian speaking citizens and ukraine. but that is one audience. the international community. the other one is actually the russian domestic audience. the hope there is that if the united states, and allies, exposed this potential effort by russia, that if russia than decides to go and invade ukraine, perhaps the russian people will say, wait, this is all manufactured. there was no real reason to go into that country to put russian troops at risk and that perhaps they will not support the military invasion. the reality of course, as you
appears from other text messages you may have had a conversation directly with president trump on the evening of january 5th and perhaps other times regarding his planning for january 6th. sean hannity may have been talking to donald trump the night before it happened. what did they discuss? other part made my head turn, hannity may have been talking to members of the cabinet about possibly removing him from office. later on january 6th, you texted to meadows press coverage relating to potential effort by members of the president s cabinet to remove him under the 20th amendment. secretaries devos and chao resigned as did members of the staff. we would like to question you regarding conversations you had with mr. meadows and others about removing the president under the amendment. let that sink in for a second. was sean hannity having
administration is that many norms have helped. some of them have not. what we found is that the president of the united states is willing to trample over them at any given point. i m a little confused by this story. what do you think is actually going on in this story? as i read it now three or four times and i can t get what is being alleged other than there is a whistleblower which is interesting as a dynamic, the notion that the whistleblowers are coming forth in washington is an interesting thing. what is being alleged as the wrong doing here? we don t actually know. the law strictly protects access to tax returns and imposes severe penalty. that will make it a little harder for congress to be able to release this one than they did the ukraine whistleblower s complaint. but they are apparently researching that and analyzing whether they can do it. so the only thing we do know is that the complaint involves a potential effort by some political appointee at the
this story because i have read it three or four times and i still can t quite get what is being alleged. there is a whistle-blower which is interesting in and of itself. the notion that the whistle-blowers are coming forth in washington is kind of an interesting thing. but what is actually being alleged as having been the wrongdoing here? so we don t actually know. the law strictly protects access to tax returns and imposes severe penalties. so that s going to make it a little harder for congress to be able to release this one than they did the ukraine whistle-blower s complaint. but they re apparently researching that and analyzing whether they can do it. so the only thing we do know is that the complaint involves a potential effort by some political appointee at the treasury department level with regard to the tax return of either the president or the vice president that was being reviewed by irs officials. that may pan out to involve no misconduct. or it may involve very serious