none of the u.n. agencies seem to be able to call out the aggressor, russia, by name. these are agencies tasked with protecting women and children. if they re not willing to criticize russia or mr. putin by name, we have a big problem on our hand. but, michael, what do you mean by that? how are they using kid gloves with russia and putin? i ll give you an example. yesterday on the w.h.o. press conference, i was the first one up to ask a question. and i said why is it that in my day we were able to call out the generals or warring sides and wherever they are in the world and today you can t name russia or mr. putin. they call them the warring sides, use language like that. the answer, well, we don t want to get involved in politics. if unicef and w.h.o. aren t
the coast and this, we re told, is under siege. and then what? then what happens? obviously the people who have stayed behind, the ukrainians who have stayed behind don t believe they are now under russian occupation. so now what? soldiers stay there? what happens in these places? this is going to be the so-called $64,000 question, alisyn. is it going to actually work the way the russians want it to? if the russians maintain control of these cities, they will have an occupation force, in essence, there. if they do that, that will not be sufficient. we ve already seen the reaction of all kinds of civilians to what the russians are doing and it s not positive. the other thing when it comes to the goals that the russians have, they are clearly building the land bridge between crimea and mariupol and then, of course, on to the donbas region.
talking feds podcast. harry, welcome back. let s start here with this allegation of a criminal conspiracy. one, do you see the evidence to support that? second, should we then expect a referral over to the doj or is that too neat and short of a line to draw so soon? yes and yes. but what happens after that is the real question. so the committee, as alisyn says, this is just part of a motion to defeat an attorney/client privilege claim of john eastman, who pro pounded the whole wacko theory. on the documents, he s saying attorney/client privilege. it s a lousy claim for several reasons, but one of them, and this is the third, the court doesn t need to adopt it is, if your client here, donald trump, is actually planning a crime, there s no attorney/client privilege so that leads the committee to say, look, there