to come to an agreement because chuck schumer s terms frankly didn t make sense and they weren t reasonable. now he and his caucus are voting for this proposal that was in front of them on friday and that they basically rejected back then. we think the president s engagement was right, was properly set forward and it helped reopen the government today, or it s going to be reopened today. we re happy how the president engaged. frank the itly it s the senatore democratic side of the aisle, but they were holding back funding for our troops, the border patrol and our first responders. do you believe the democrats blinked? i think the fact they are voting in favor of this proposal that they rejected a few days ago is sort of evidence that they blinked. is the president committed to this proposal, that the senate will take up these issues, including allowing the d.r.e.a.m.ers, the daca recipients, to stay in the united states, to get some sort of legal status for them, perhaps even a p
can use that sort of privilege at this point. our own jeffrey toobin. the basic rule of attorney/client privilege is itly covers conversation between a client ant attorney. if any third party is present, there is to privilege attached to the conversation. so, what donald trump jr. is counting on, a compliant republican dominated committee, that won t hold him in contempt, but his legal position is absurd. let s put the legal question aside because i m not an attorney. le i don t think you are. but that s cool. let s talk about if there s no impropriety here, what s the pef exception of what would happen behind closed doors if he s not talking? you have to imagine that his supporters you know, feel that this is continues to be a witch hunt, as they call it, i don t know that that s going to
say, you don t question this. you have told the president this. i know personally that russia was behind the attacks. a long roster of cabinet members have said russia was behind the attacks. but the president has been unwilling to say this definitively and direct tly. i wanted to play some of what he said since he was elected, which is since he began getting old classified intelligence briefing. as far as hacking, i think it was russia. but i think he also get hacked by other countries and other people. could have been china. could have been a lot of different groups. if russia hacked. if russia did anything having to do with our election, i want to know about it. could have been china. could have been other countries. if russia hacks. will anything convince him, do you think? i think he s now had the intelligence briefings we had prior to the election. it is clear it was a nation state attack by russia out of
both possess the appropriate credentials and clearances. we have invited democrats here and have been told that material they see will shed light on the investigation. i know a lot of folks want to talk about the process and not the surveillance, the underlying issue. the we should all be concerned about. it affects all americans, our liberties, freedoms, civil liberties, so let s talk about some of i know that is not here march 2nd, the day before the president s tweet, camp comments by a senior initiation official and foreign policy expert evelyn farkas together with previous reports that have been out made serious concern about whether there was an organized and widespread effort by the obama administration to use and leak highly sensitive intelligence information for political purposes. she admitted this on television by saying, i was urging my former colleagues, fitly speaking the people on the hill. i was telling people on the hill get as much information as you can, get as muc
say they were listening to russian officials. they were monitoring the stuff. picking people up. being discussed. matthew, appreciate your time. if you can stick around. want to bring in the panel. joining us, republican strategist, and the other panel. jeffrey, you cited rosenberg s article previously. exactly. the point is the new york times stories and other not just the new york times, the washington post, guardian, et cetera, were building a narrative that the trump campaign was some how is his itly it you said the article some how, val dates. i listened to the explanation. i still believe that. the thrust as the part of the narrative used, media narrative tips, that trump has got this thing going with the russians, russians kicked over the election for him. that is not true. there is no proof of this. this is part of the media narrative. this isn t just jeff lord. don t think people are making