collect mass in terms of resources and time they ve invested, budget they put into it that they are all over the place looking something essentially to justify their existence. rob: right, in this case, paul manafort who, you know, a lot of people on the left thought behind the grand collusion theory that they have, that he was communicating with the russians, trying the swing the election this way and they find bank fraud case from what, 13 years ago now and this judge, one judge who was actually a reagan point says you can t use this to try and make a case here, this is too old, right? you have a reagan-appointee judge making those comments and really in unprecedented fashion and publicly talking about, you know, what mueller s team is doing here and the reason why they are going after manafort which, again, has really nothing to do with the collusion issue. the judge making the comments
because he doesn t stay on top of it. he s attacking mueller in the investigation every day, to no avail, by the way. in the abc poll a few weeks ago, 69% of americans said they had confidence of mueller looking into the collusion issue, 54% into the noncollusion business issue. that s he s attacking rosen, he s attacking the fbi. he knows that. we keep making this mistake and it gets back to my big theme in gas lighting america. we think donald trump needs to fight on facts because we re used to that, it s logical, it s what he s supposed to do. no, he does not fight on fact. he developed a whole counternarrative of a coup being staged against him. if you tune in fox news, you see this again and again and again. a lot of people believe that. they don t believe there s not
was trying to obstruct investigation into liz own campaign. those are perfectly important appropriate questions to be asked. they were also questions on the collusion issue. there were some questions on the business in russia. that intriguing question about paul manafort, are you aware of any effort by your campaign, including and he s the only one he singled out paul manafort to obtain russia s assistance? that could mean a few thing, it can be to seek out the stolen e-mails from wikileaks, the roger stone inquiries. it could also allude to if these questions were obtained from the white house, they re not the questions that s written by mueller, they are the questions as rewritten as notes
counsel but special counsel needs to insist. congressman, i m not assuming this is the entire list of questions and exact questions that are going to be asked but those are inquiries you d like to be touched on? yes. it certainly the list that was put together looks like a very reasonable ask of the special counsel. those are all areas where, particularly, you know they shed light on the president s intent behind the firing of james comey, the degree which they might have floated pardons over people, is there internal revenue service and jeff sessions recused himself. all of that goes to whether he was trying to obstruct investigation into liz own campaign. those are perfectly important appropriate questions to be asked. they were also questions on the collusion issue. there were some questions on the business in russia.
read it in detail. i read about it. i understand the conclusions that they made, but i don t want to assert something that i haven t done. this has been a long time coming. they broke down into partisan bickering on this months and months ago. my impression is by saying the russians didn t have a preference in this election, didn t want to defeat hillary clinton or elect donald trump, that doesn t square with the evidence. i spent a lot of time on this and read the classified version of the report of the intelligence committee that came out january a year ago, and it s pretty conclusive. it s very strong. i don t really think there s any doubt about that. i think there is doubt on the collusion issue and that s what s taking us the time we re taking and we re following up on every possible lead. to argue a, the russians didn t do it, b they didn t have a