then we ll talk about it on the other side. here he said it was better to listen to ukraine s leaders than established american diplomats.k the ukrainian foreign minister.ai he said it so strongly. i have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. he just said that. they re the ones that know of this pressure. not some crooked ambassador that s a deep stater or a bushy, or a clintonite, or a barack obama ambassador. carol, another way to put it is the great divide. the people he just described, who have been on display during these hearings are also known for their knowledge, their ar expertise, their rigor. together they put together the government of the united states. it s been interesting to watch, brian, how often the
he s not merely undercutting chris wray but the entire law enforcement professionals on the front lines, defending our freedom, keeping the country safe. other than the fact that they are patriots and they want to serve the public s interests. carol, does the circle of trust, circle of protection around this president come down to people like mulvaney, like bolton, like mcgahn? it s such a great question. i wondered all along if we re going to give sodium pentothol to these folks, if they sat in front of an audience to say what happened, what would they say? it may be that way. in the mueller probe i remember a source saying to me there are key things we re not going to learn about the president s actions because this is a man who does not email. email is the way in which we
did to collect intelligence about the trump campaign. the core statement in my opinion by the ig is that these irregularities, these misstatements, these owe missions were not satisfactorily explained. and i think that leaves open the possibility to infer bad faith. here for our lead-off discussion on a tuesday night, carol lenic, washington post, jeremy bash, former chief of staff at the pentagon and formerly chief counsel of the house intel and michael schmidt pulitzer prize winner for the new york times. jeremy bash, first off, what are we watching here? is the attorney general deciding on his own independent truth as the saying goes, all evidence to the contrary?
irregularities, these misstatements, these owe missions were not satisfactorily explained. and i think that leaves open the possibility to infer bad faith. here for our lead-off discussion on a tuesday night, carol lenic, washington post, jeremy bash, former chief of c, staff at the pentagon and formerly chief counsel of the house intel and michael schmidt pulitzer prize winner for the new york times. tz jeremy bash, first off, what are we watching here? is the attorney general deciding on his own independent truth as the saying goes, all evidence to the contrary? what s amazing, brian, is that the attorney general is complaining in this interview with pete williams.
attorney general barr is voicing his objections to the ig report. here is what he told our colleague, pete williams. in one area i do disagree with the ig, and that was whether there was sufficient predication to open a full-blown counterintelligence investigation, specifically using the techniques that they o did to collect intelligence about the trump campaign. the core statement in my opinion by the ig is that these irregularities, these by misstatements, these owe omissions were not satisfactor satisfactorily explained. and i think that leaves open the possibility to infer bad faith. here for our lead-off discussion on a tuesday night, carol lenic, washington post, jeremy bash, former chief of ni staff at cia and pentagon and