Quote:
Originally Posted by RainierWolfcastle
I actually kind of side with the lawyer there over Wallace. Lawyer was speaking hypothetically and Wallace jumped on him. Awkward because there's plenty to go after Trump legitimately on.
lol, no.
Here is a transcript.
Quote:
It was put forward in a memorandum by the Dep AG and AG requesting the removal of James Comey. So here's the constitutional question. The President takes action based on numerous events including recommendations from his AG. He takes the action they also recommended and now he is being investigated by the DOJ. This is special counsel under special counsel regulations reporting still to the DOJ, not independent counsel. So he is being investigated for taking the action recommended by the agency who recommended the termination. So that's the constitutional question.
Where are the words "if," "would," "supposed to," "alleged," that signal that we're in any way deviating from real facts? Or how about the word "hypothetically" for this supposed hypothetical? The fact that he said "question" without ever asking a question does not signal hypothetical, only that he sucks at words.
Wallace follows up very correctly with this.
Quote:
What's the "question"? You stated some facts.
Like maybe in this guy's Trump-addled ****** brain he thinks he put forward a hypothetical, even though he obviously did not, but you know, if your one job is to spread the misinformation that Trump is not being investigated, then you probably shouldn't say "he is being investigated" twice on national television. Just a thought. Hypothetically.