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
An effort to line his own pocket. it was probably thrilled in having his son aboard air force two regardless of the purpose of making the trip because he knew the alternative could be that lifestyle that was exposed when the laptop was made public. all i know for sure is a terse reply of never doesn t cut it. the story is bigger now. it requires a full accounting by the president and the longer he waits, the more it s going to fester. and it turns out he is capable of change when it comes to acknowledging hunter s controversies. they acknowledged grandchild number seven for whom hunter had denied practice ternt parentity and is now paying child support. in a statement to people magazine, jill and i only want what is best for all of our grandchildren, including navy. perhaps a similar clarification regarding hunter s business is in the offing. joining me now is joseph