Back. Overnight weve seen the president evolve his thinking to now advocate for the Death Penalty and, regardless, both of these statements are somewhat inappropriate and unprecedented just in terms of what a president traditionally would say, which is to restrain from offering this sort of commentary. It is in keep with the kind of public persona that donald trump has cultivated over many, many years in public life of trying to show himself to be strong and tough and have this steely resolve. But hes not a commentator anymore. Hes the president of the United States. So theres a different standard, and his words carry a different weight. Theres an obliviousness to the fact that he sits atop the federal government. A federal government whose Justice System he described yesterday as a Laughing Stock and a joke. Well, the comment to first it just shows his total lack of rigor in making any
pronouncements. This is someone who revels in his unpreparedness. Its an improvisational act. Theres
Qu quote, Deutsch Banks takes its legal obligations seriously. Heres an interview with the New York Times a couple of months ago, answering questions as to whether his businesses and finances were fair gain. If mueller was looking at your finances and your Family Finances unrelated to russia, is that a red line . I would say yes. Lets get to all of this with our reporters and guests, White House Bureau chief phil rucker, with me on set, National Security reporter ken delaney. And chuck rosenberg, a former u. S. Attorney who worked on the staff of Robert Mueller and James Comb Koecomey of the fbi. Let me start with those financial headlines. Theres a dispute about the facts, but would you surmise that Donald Trumps taxes are something that bob mueller either has or will seek to
which the president and james comey have very different accounts of what happened there. And finally to the Deutsch Bank Discussion that youre having. Jay sekulow is another one of the president s outside counsel
Anything else, this man was not necessarily that person. However, my point was just to say that you can be lowlevel george, you can be low on the org chart and still be the guy who goes to moscow and was sending plenty of emails to people who were high level. High level, theres now it seems like there may be a fair number of people, including high level steve, mr. Bannon, who is for the first time, this is the first moment in which highlevel steve is being dragged into this investigation. First time weve heard his name in a material way and that story may be developing. Let me jump in on this. The point is that when you want to do something sensitive like this, its something akin to an intelligence operation which was what this was on the russian side and i would argue in ways even on the trump side. You do send a lowlevel guy. You dont send the senior guy. You send the low level guy because he attracts less attention. You do that with purpose. So im very much validating johns point bu
again in earnest when we really have a better insight into what s going to happen in the senate, katy. i wonder what s going to happen with president trump, phil, because it seems like he would be susceptible to mitch mcconnell calling him and saying, listen, you don t want this, you can spin this as a win by saying the democrats are too scared. absolutely. how effective would that be or is it better for nancy pelosi and chuck schumer to keep beating this drum and then he ll feel aggrieved and demand that he be exonerated by multiple witnesses and a big showy trial. i guess if you re playing the two sides of trump. exactly. and trump, as always, is a wild card here. we don t really know how he s going to take this all in over the next few weeks. here s looking for two things, he wants acquittal by the senate but he wants to take advantage of this trial to have a show of force as you put, even if it becomes a circus like atmosphere
republicans about how to conduct the president s senate impeachment trial. three people who have spoken to the president tell politico that privately donald trump is still harboring a desire to create a flashy testimony filled trial fueled by a belief that such an approach would vindicate him and embarrass democrats, which is the exact opposite of the quick witness free trial that senate republican leaders have been planning and that the president has publicly insisted he too wants. joining me now is former u.s. attorney harry litman, and former federal prosecutor doug burns. welcome to both of you. doug, what do you think, the president having a long drawn out trial with multiple witnesses, does that benefit him? what i thought, honestly, was that the president being the way he is with his personality, going after everybody, we want this long drawn out thing but that cooler heads wo would prev and mitch mcconnell and lindsey graham would convince him, the president, not to do that.