i believe the inspector general should investigate this and other cases that suggest that the weaponization of law enforcement by a corrupt president. house speaker nancy pelosi answered that call say ing transparency is essential. the justice department and bill barr declined to comment on all this new reporting. so did a representative for apple. but the real question this morning with a new administration in place is how does an attorney general such as merrick garland give the public confidence that the department will no longer be used for political ends. joining us now new york times washington correspondent maggie peoplerman and peter strzok. look, peter, i want to start with you. there have been corruption investigations into members of congress where you look into certain things to figure out if they did something wrong. i can t think of anything quite
barr. yeah, of course. as an investigator, you begin to understand when people are not telling the truth, avoiding answers. when i see long pauses, vague answers, refusing to answer, it s clear things are there. it s clear kamala harris knew exactly what was going on and bill barr knew what he was hiding there. it was clear he wasn t being forthcoming in his answers to those questions. very interesting to go back and look at things. as you said, maggie, maybe worth looking at a lot of things that were said out loud that we know now. so what role did apple play in handing over data to the fbi, and what are they required to do by law? a closer look next. blue president biden is expected to kick off a meeting with world leaders hours from now. we re live from england. and two coronavirus cases aboard a cruise. what does that mean for ships
they need to stop the leaking from the intelligence committee. if they don t stop it, i can t imagine that people are not going to go after them and find out what s happening. they already had, maggie. right. as we know, the former president had a habit of saying things publicly as if he was unaware of things that were taking place and they often matched his words and what he was saying. one thing i m struck by in the last 12 hours or so since this came to light is the number of people who i have spoken to who work inside the trump administration who have essentially justified it saying, they, too, had reason to be angry with the house intelligence committee. they lose sight because they get lost in that trump was victimized. they look at this on sitting
experience. maggie, what do you think of this? sometimes these things blend together. you have, i think, a public who becomes numb. they re used to hearing this over and over, but this seems different. this is certainly more elevated. this was an incredibly aggressive move by the justice department, brianna. look, we have seen more commonly investigations into leaks that related to seizing journalists records that happened under obama, that clearly happened very aggressively under former president trump. the scope of this is really very different. again, the bar is supposed to be higher for going after a co-equal branch of government s records, so this spea sopeaks t number one, about the president s desire to have leaks ended. he was constantly talking about