he emerged today, of course, refusing to take any questionse to defend his department s actions. visa v former president.ia my role is completelysp consistenteak on with regulatios that set forth the responsibilities of , e attorney general underco the special counsel regulations, and i followed thos te regulations. lau look, let sra be very clear here. the issue is are you acting in good faith or? are you part of a political operation to get a conviction 81% mp by any means necessary? 81% of republicans believeof reb about all you know. this is all about politics and protecting one of the more destructivvee presidentsha the united states has ever had. joe biden. and they rjoe bide e now consider the situation this way. no one believes that merrick garland would still be a a.g. if he didn t hadn t greenlitlig a special prosecutor. this case, everyone at msnbc and cnn believes that garland tu is trying to put trump in jailt. no matter where the facts lead. otherwise they
tracking them with their cell phone, cell phone, trackin tg technology and no suspects. so it s all because that technology was was not working properly. and we have cameras in every inch of capitol hill, every single inch. that is what he claims. the geofence data was corrupt. so how convenient. okay. the other question that i asked him was, could these because has off? i asked him to explain to mekedi how m toa one hour kitchen timer can set a bomb off 17 hours later. and he admitted for the first time, and this contradictsadmitf what he said in the media before that it couldn t. and then the other thing the i asked him was, given all of these coincidences, wouldn tbomb people who discovered the bombs be suspects since the bombs were basically inert and then they were found within 20 minutes of the first breach of the capitol, botthbre he said that s investigation one, two, one. yes. 10e wouldd whion be suspects. i said, who found the second bomb? the second know. i said, do this i
members of the public who followed the rules at the time, furious, his mps too. his ability to get people to follow new restrictions, undermined. have you lied to the public, prime minister? so a prime ministerfacing questions at every turn. but he didn t even wait for one before making a statement. and i can understand how infuriating it must be to think that the people who have been setting the rules have not been following the rules, mr speaker, because i was also furious to see that clip. and, mr speaker, iapologise. i apologise unreservedly for the offence that it has caused up and down the country, and i apologise for the impression that it gives. he announced an internal investigation, but said he d been assured there was no party. we ve all watched the videol of the prime minister s staff, including his personal spokesperson.
step with majority opinion spread wisss witwisdom or ideol. getting rid of all private what was the motivation? the motivation was to charge insurers in the united states. so it may play well at the fox advertising rates which is how theater in detroit where i had can we make the most money. the privilege of spending time, what s the best, most engaging but i question whether it s show that we can put on every going to be a winning ticket in sangle day. november. and that didn t always work with bottom line, there s a ton of what republicans wanted to do. time on the clock. hey, i am off for a vacation at times, republicans would say, hey, this is the best deal we next week. can cut. i ll see you back here in two and talk radio would say, no, weeks. have a nice weekend. stand up and fight for us. fight for our values. they re rolling over again. m very forte i can lean on people, for the mainstream media, the and that for me is what teamwork is all about. democrats, that s all they d
decisions decisions and they disagree. i think it is very weird that somebody that is an extreme ideol ideologue substituted for people who have knowledge like the chairman of the joint chiefs and the intelligence community who will be invited if necessary is a little bit different, so i find very strange that somebody with the background and the proclivities of mr. bannon now will be there all the time, and that the president and that team will not be able to know how the others felt about it. and how unusual is it for the press secretary and for the white house to say to dissenting foreign service officers if if you can t get with the program, get out? i find that totally stunning, because one of the aspects of this dissent channel is that it allows those people who do not agree to voice their views. the strength of our system of