Sweetheart plea deal that he got that fell apart over the summer. It could be mean a highstakes trial playing out at the same time his dad will be fighting for reelection. Three felony charges. Lets take a look. Two for lying about his drug use while buying a gun in 2018. The third count is for possession of that gun knowing he lied to get it. His attorney is pointing to david weiss. Republicans are in the drivers seat of the prosecutors car. There will be a defense on the facts as well and people need to remember whether its a unique and unjustified charge. He owned an unloaded gun for 11 days. There will never have been a charge like that brought in the United States. President biden let me close with this. I wish i had a chance to take all your questions but i will get in real trouble if i do that. Harris oh, wow. David spunt at the Justice Department with more. David. Hi, good morning. Hunter bidens attorney is clearly arguing that hunter biden is being politically prosecuted. That
The Prime Minister insisted that they appear separately. And you can see some of her logic. She used the opportunity to kick lumps out of her opponents when they couldnt retort. You have diane abbott who cant add up sitting around the cabinet table. John mcdonnell, who is a marxist. Nicola sturgeon, who wants to break our country up. And tim farron who wants to bring us back into the eu, the direct opposite of what the british people want. The audience though gave her a pretty rough time. Refusing to answer peoples questions, refusing to talk toJeremy Corbyn. A Prime Minister and potential future Prime Minister doesnt understand the difference between a Learning Disability and the Mental Health condition. I had called an election. For the good of the Conservative Party, you have called a General Election for the good of the Conservative Party and it will backfire on you. Including on brexit. Do you really think you have any real leverage with brussels . An area where she has a rather w
it s a terrific question, kim. and i think this is still mitch mcconnell we are talking about. and clearly, there are a few things he wants less than to hand the white house a slam-dunk win but i think gop leadership has made a few calculations here. so first, republicans may believe this could make moderate democrats less likely to support the next blockbuster spending bill biden has proposed through budget reconciliation. the idea is to give democrats a victory here. show a reasonable willingness to reach across the aisle. and senators, like joe manchin, might not rally behind a fully-partisan sending spree, next. additionally, republicans may see this as a necessary concession to prevent what they perceive as an even worse outcome. democrats responding by killing the filibuster out of frustration from not getting this bill enacted. and lastly, to your point, i think supporting this bill, despite what trump has said, isn t likely to generate a huge amount of backlash against republ
that this is just an opportunity for james comey to save face? well, let me give you a little background about myself. i was an stability district attorney many alabama. helped to manage the grand jury and had dozens of felony jury trials. then later difference district attorney of madison county, alabama of supervised the grand jury trials. so i have some prosecutorial experience and i ll going to break this down into two arenas. on the legal side, it was a clear slam-dunk win for president obama excuse me, president trump and the white house. by way of example, no evidence of any kind of collusion with the russians. donald trump is cleared on that. number two, with respect to these allegations of obstruction of justice, it is quitelear there s no evidence that whateverhe president said or did hampered or retarded or hindered in any way what the fbi investigation was doing. so legal arena, big victory for
that is a slippery slope. absolutely. there has to be culpability. people in this exact situation have filed suit against manufacturers and recouped money and damages. to what extent is the question. i don t think it s a slam dunk loss or a slam dunk win but they ll settle out of court. we re saying if you were in a similar situation. directly on point. the courts say if the warning is sufficient, they don t get anything. but even if it s the company. they reflect on the warning. that s their position. absolutely. it makes sense because if you don t give that layer of protection, you don t have recall and protection for other companies to recall the product. you sound like one of these crazy lawyers, didn t you read the fine print on your carnival