looking for. google, anti-competitor, they might say, they might say to their customers, their advertisers, you can t advertising anywhere else. you can only advertise with us because we want all of your advertising dollars. neil: by means by which to use that to advertising, right? shepard: that would be anticompetitive. on the issue of privacy i m laughing. one of my laughing at? the state attorney general will go after a company for violating privacy. the 50 of them do more violations than privacy, the people that work for them ten google could ever do. neil: what do you think this is about? dollars, something larger than $200 billion because that was 20 years ago. neil: what about the ftc and justice department sort of stick their noses in here? it will be more dollars. but the last thing that google wants is a trial and they will pay dearly to prevent that from happening. 20 years from now success is for these 50 people. neil: we will be talking
released his tax returns. that has raised all of these questions. and so congress is attempting to use a law that has been passed that was enacted into law, having been signed by a prior president. so they re using the law to obtain them. he could make this whole thing go away by releasing his returns and so there is a legitimate reason for them to be able to pursue it. it also raises the question, i think, as to whether the president is abusing his authority by having the justice department sort of under his authority make arguments that protect him personally. so talk to me about that. i think that s really interesting. what does that say about the bill barr justice department? well, it shows, first of all, that not just bill barr, but that the entire instrument of the justice department, including the office of legal counsel, which issues the definitive legal opinions for the department and advises the rest of the executive branch, is
people not to read some of mccabe s book as ven jegeance? there may be score settling in this, but is the material in it true, when the new york times first started reporting these claims that, you know, for example that rod rosenstein offered to wear a while, or there was talk of invoking the 25th amendment, the justice department sort of denied it. you know, now there is a name associated with these claims, and he is making his case, and people can decide for themselves if they think the material is true. if they think it is true, people have his motives in coming forward at this stage, and to what element there is score settling is be side the point.
be targeting you, as well. john, are there any guardrails frank brings up an interesting point here. any guardrails to keep them from using other information that they may have scooped up? no, there isn t. we re not enforcing the law anymore. while nixon had the plumbers to plu plug up leaks, we have sessions doing the same thing for mr. t. under investigation by the same department sort of by the special counsel. so what what were they doing? i think they work backwards from the fact that the leak that they charge involves carter page being recruited as a spy by the russians. that s what this is about. and what we re trying to keep from the public is the fact of that association. and so i think they work backwards from the published story and pulled up everything about this woman for the new
and i believe that she wrote to the justice department. she asked for permission. the justice department sort of said the buck stops at the white house. so her attorney sent a letter to the chief counsel and said the letter from her attorney said if i do not receive a response by monday at 10:00 a.m., which is when she was supposed to testify, i will conclude that i can testify and then -ing. it s oron the same day. she has to she still has ethical obligations. she s a former prosecutor, has access to information that can embarrass an unindicted person. we re burying the obvious. sally yates is an obama appointee. lets rr see what the opposition party has to say. sally yates was appointed by