declini declining. the the fact that there was a heat flash does not mean a missile was fired, but to my judgment, it is the airplane exploding in midair and these are satellites to pick up thermal signatures, and big instances of heat, and there is a lot of stuff going on now s, s wolf, to decide the if there is something inside of the plane. the first thing is the flight manifest, and secondly, whether there is chatter on the isis wire, and whether isis individuals are talking about it. it is odd to me if this were isis that the only claim is that out of a relatively small group out of the sinai. and then you have to look at things like conversations with the baggage handlers and the personnel who were on the ground and what they saw and what they said. i have checked, phil, with the israelis and they are right on the border, and if you put up a map where the crash occurred, it is not far from israel, and they have a very good missile system, and the patriot dome,
tail fin. but then also if it wasn t a missile it could still be a terrorist activity from an explosion, from a plastic explosive like pan am but had a much wider scattered patd earn of debris. phillip, if you were leading the investigation, what are some of the possibilities you d be explo exploring? one, something inside the plane, mechanical, and three outside the plane. i would put a terror tack outside the plane lowest. but my focus right now wouldn t be what happened here. it would be a people focus. do i have the manifest, the flight manifest so i can bounce the names off that from the names we have in our national terrorism databases here in america. and the second thing obviously you re doing is looking at your coverage, your intelligence coverage of isis in the sinai and saying are they talking about this either positively or negatively. that is saying we did it or happened here we have no idea what just happened.
the argument what the article might allege, which is essentially quid pro quo. the article doesn t really allege anything. that s right. it hints and implies and juxtaposes things. but the only clear allegation is about the failure of disclosure, and i think that that s the big problem here for the clintons. explain that. okay. so the yeah. there is a hint of a quid pro quo but there is basically a quid and a quo and they happened around the same time. they re right when they say there is no evidence. the evidence of the new york times story i think is a little bit weaker than it appears. some of the stuff about kazakhstan came out in the 2008 story in the new york times, and then there was a piece in forbes debunking some of that, particularly the allegation that clinton had flown in with this the canadian mining magnate whose name i m not going to pronounce correctly. why. right. but in fact they hadn t flown in together, at least according to forbes, wh
times story i think is a little bit weaker than it appears. some of the stuff about kazakhstan came out in the 2008 story in the new york times, and then there was a piece in forbes debunking some of that, particularly the allegation that clinton had flown in with this the canadian mining magnate whose name i m not going to pronounce correctly. why. right. but in fact they hadn t flown in together, at least according to forbes, which got his flight manifest. clinton was flying with ron burkle. the mining magnate was already in kazakhstan. not that this makes them look so much better, but it does suggest that it wasn t like him bringing clinton along to sweeten the deal. so already some of the facts are a little bit weaker than the times presents them. the one thing in the piece that i think the clinton camp has to explain i think it looks really bad that they haven t tried to explain is the fact that disclosure. but they had an agreement with the obama administration
the strongest version of what the article might allege. the article doesn t really allege anything. it hints and implies and juxtaposes things. the only clear indication is disclosure and that s i think the only problem for clinton. there s a hint of a quid pro quo- there s basically here s a quid and here s a quo and they sort of happened around the same time. they re right when they say there s nofd. the evidence of new york times story is weaker than it appears. some of this stuff about kazakhstan came out in the new york times. and there was a piece in forbes debunking some of that particularly the allegation that clinton had flown in with the canadian mining magnate, whose name i m not going to pronounce correctly, but in fact they hadn t flown in together aleast according to forbes which got his flight manifest.