“Just when you think Alec Baldwin can’t go any lower, he blames Halyna Hutchins, the woman he shot to death, for getting shot to death” writes the New York Post. Naturally, Baldwin gifted his first interview since the tragic death of Hutchins to his Hampton’s buddy and leftwing media host George Stephanopoulos.
“Everything is at her direction,” Baldwin told George Stephanopoulos during the hourlong interview that aired Thursday night on ABC. Ultimately the entire one hour can be summed up by Baldwin’s twelve words: “Someone is responsible for what happened, and I know it’s not me.”
For any viewers looking for anything particularly meaningful from Baldwin or for him to answer tough questions, a sit-down with his liberal elite buddy was not the place to get it. “I’m holding the gun where she told me to hold it,” Baldwin said, “which ended up right below her armpit. Which is what I was told — I don’t know.”
He carried on, “I would never point a gun at anyone, and pull the trigger at them. Never.” Oddly he had just finished describing how he was pointing the gun at Hutchins.
Agent Bobby Chacon, a retired FBI agent who works as a writer and on-set consultant for Hollywood stated “The bullet striking and killing that woman came out of the barrel of the gun pointed directly at her…Bullets don’t curve. He isn’t in ‘The Matrix.’ The trigger would still have to be pulled.”
“I’m not aware of any gun firing itself,” says Steve Wolf, a Hollywood firearms and special-effects expert since 1994. “I’ve never seen a gun self-discharge. A single-action revolver like this” — the Colt that Baldwin fired — “can be discharged very easily, with minimal input required … The trigger still must have been pressed.”
Wolf is also outraged by a larger concern. “It’s really important to discredit anyone who claims that guns fire themselves,” he says. “If this becomes an acceptable defense, there goes any accountability when it comes to shooting people. We can’t have this kind of ‘guns shoot themselves’ thing. They don’t.”
BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling
Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.
The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.
Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.
Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.
In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.
Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.
Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.
Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.
The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.
Trump vows to appeal the decision.
National Security6 days ago
Authorities catch Afghan national on terror watchlist at southern CA border
Israel5 days ago
Iran-backed Houthis recruiting ‘thousands’ of children after Oct 7 massacre
China7 days ago
Explosive testimony: Bobulinski testifies Joe Biden had ‘central role’ in family’s overseas business
China6 days ago
Hunter associate: China successfully attempted to ‘infiltrate and compromise’ Biden family and Obama White House