that is in the indictment against the former president. and so this is, again [inaudible] he brought on himself. neil: things he brought on himself, but he s also saying governor if you don t like some of the legal attack lines that the former president has had to endure, they are only going to get worse and only going to get bigger, and it is only going to get more problematic. what do you think of that? well, i think that s exactly correct. that s why i make the case that this is such a big distraction to not just the campaign itself, but to our democracy, and if he put the country first, then he would step aside now. he s not going to do that, so we ve got to go through the voters, but the voters are going to understand that we can t win with this kind of cloud that hangs over somebody who wants to be the nominee of the party. he will be having appearances in court. he probably will not appear in
very strange. and i think for all of us, what i ve said from the start is that the, our problems will continue. that than stan was not a one-off mistake. that nobody tripped over a log. this is who they are and when that is the case, just like during the campaign itself, they will mislead, they will lie on occasion. they will say a lot of things. you will hear a lot of sounds that don t connect to any real meaning. that is not going to change. she isn t going to change. the president s not going to change and the democrats are still trying to figure out how can they pull this over once again. i think they re going to be disappointed. there was a message that some kind of poll, that democrats liked her performance with charlemagne the god the other day and the fact is that they liked it. i think in part because she didn t laugh. that she seemed like a real person but even that message exposed her as being thin-skinned, as being defensive, and certainly out of
think twice. this is psychological warfare as much as anything else. taking a look at the campaign itself, the russian campaign. they started off thinking this would be swift, it would be sharp and it would be in and out or rather an in state and pretty quickly. what is how it s gone tell you about the command structure and is actually in control of the whole thing? than control of the whole thing? in interesting question. usually control of the whole thing? fifi interesting question. usually an operation like this would have been identified global commander. whether this is to be any such figures. everyone seems to be doing things independently and that creates all kinds of problems with coordination and social but something about how this was a phenomenally badly organised plan. given that they ve been planning this for so long, it seems to be that vladimir putin insisted on some political vision of
barr that did the most, and he played both good and bad cop along the way. he really did. during the campaign itself, he, too, was raising questions about the integrity of mail in voting as loudly as just about anybody, but barr played a very critical role of the election. for whatever happened before, when he went and investigated donald trump s crazy claims and unsubstantiated claims about election fraud, he said there was nothing to them. he said there was nothing here at all of any significance. and he came out in a very dramatic faction and said there was no fraud.