well, because the memo doesn t say what the fbi did in terms of what they actually did report to the court about the sources. it doesn t have an affirmative statement about what they said about those sources. it doesn t talk about what other bases for the probable cause was in the application. there could have been a whole host of other types of intelligence information that formed the basis for that application. it doesn t say the memo doesn t say whether or not the fbi and the department of justice went back to the court and said, court, we ve changed our assessment of steele as a source. and, court, will you reauthorize the surveillance again anyway since they had three more renewals. so i just think it s premature. it may be you know, there may need there may be an inquiry that reveals there was something done wrong, but i think it s premature. carl bernstein. we have plenty of organizations, inspectors general, and oversights committee to look at the fbi and
the three and a half years. why don t you think it measures up? the memo doesn t say in terms what the fbi did in terms what they actually did. it doesn t have an affirmative statement what they did with those sources. what other bases for the probable cause was in the application. could have been a host of other types of intelligence information that form the basis for that application. the memo doesn t say whether or not the fbi and the department of justice went back to the court and said court, we have changed our assessment of steel as a source and will you reauthorize the . so i think it s premature. there may be an inquiry that reveals there was something done wrong, but i think it s premature. carl bernstein.
trying to put out look, did you realize in this special counsel guy, this bob mueller has hired a bunch of people who have been aligned with democrats, in fact, one the people on that list right there, was a lawyer for the clinton foundation. and maybe they don t like president trump and maybe and i will tell you what, the department of justice has explicit rules on what is a conflict. you can t participate in personal or political relationships. however it doesn t say whether or not donations are on the list. but if something worked for the clinton foundation doesn t that sound like they have got a relationship political in nature? ainsley: yeah or giving thousands of dollars. that s a lot one of these people gave like $33,000. one of these attorneys. steve: maybe that person should recuse himself from this particular investigation. clayton: extend like the clinton years. starts off as an investigation around white water and it dessends after seven years into this discussion about
korea. are we higher along that concern than we were say a year ago? well, the united states has a treaty. it s a treaty alliance partner with japan and with south korea and with a couple of other countries in southeast asia, including singapore and thailand and the philippines. with respect to japan and south korea, it s been understood that if north korea were somehow to attack and were threatened with nuclear weapons, the united states has vowed to provide an overwhelming response. the united states doesn t say whether it s going to be nuclear or not, just an overwhelming response. so the issue is if north korea goes ahead and gets a deliverable nuclear weapon, where will that all be and will these countries be satisfied to say they will be protected by this overwhelming u.s. respon
they re sympathetic to the idea there might be a problem. to be clear, the doj s filing doesn t say whether or not these allegations are true. it just says, if they are true, they would be bad and should stop. and there is a history here, joy reid, because a federal appeals court judge, the fourth circuit, said a state law a couple years ago was a surgical attack against minority voting. that it was trying to depress and suppress black turnout. yeah, i mean, you had what was called the kitchen sink law that was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in north carolina not long after the shelby decision, which weakened the voting rights act. it s called the kitchen sink law because it went after essentially all the types of voting found to be used more by african-americans in a study done by republican legislators. they studied what kind of voting was used by different racial groups. they only struck down those types of voting used most by