perhaps the attorney she spoke to may have been politically motivated or politically connected and encouraged her to specifically cite judge kavanaugh even though her memory was not full on that. and last night on fox news judge kavanaugh cited a new york times report that said ms. ramirez had recently contacted former yale classmates, told them or told some of them that she wasn t sure it was kavanaugh. is that true, that she had done that? i wasn t representing her at the time that was going on. so i wouldn t be able to answer that question. but in regards to the information about the attorney that she hired, she hired stan garnett, who is a career prosecutor. he s somebody who until just recently was the elected district attorney for boulder county, miss ramirez s home county. so he was the perfect fit. and for anybody who knows mr. garnett, there is no way he would play politics with some sort of information like this. he cares about victims of sexual violence and wouldn t pu
have hearings, to bring forth information to the american people. and so, a handful of members who are uttering criticisms, many of whom are in tough re-election campaigns doesn t cut it. the u.s. ambassador to the united nations nikki haley said the united states in her words will never trust russia. do you think there s anything republicans can say that will convince the president to reconsider this summit? well, that s not clear based on the fact that the president seems to have made up his mind. he wants to continue to play footsy with vladimir putin. apparently, he s willing to criticize everyone else, all of our allies, whether that s great britain or france or germany or mexico or canada or australia or nato. the european union. he doesn t mince words when it comes to the people who are part of the free world. and yet, he refuses to criticize vladimir putin who we know is a thug and a dictator and who engineered an attack on our democracy.
server and classified information was compromised by unauthorized individuals to include foreign governments or intelligence services via cyberintrusion or other means so that is in black and white now. we know that there was a breach or compromise of clinton emails, that is a very high level of classification. what it doesn t say is the server itself was compromised. in terms of criminal prosecution that doesn t matter. what matters is classified information fell into the hands of hostile adversaries. talk about the draft the comey exoneration letter went through and at one point there was mention that pres. obama was one of the people she communicated within an area that may have been potentially compromised and talking about the foreign influence but they took pres. obama s name out of the report and said senior high level officials so his name was scrubbed from the draft as well.
but there s nothing prosecutable here and we are going to decline to move forward with any recommendation on that line but something i learned for the first time today is there were 5 different fbi employees they found texting messages they were concerned about, we heard about peter stzrok and lisa page but there are other people we don t have a name yet for. we get those? eventually we will get a lot more information than we have now particularly in the congressional hearings and i think where we will get a lot of information is when we get the other half of the story. if you think about what happened here the fbi and this is evidence from the text messages of stzrok and page, they consider the clinton email investigation and the trump rest investigation as a single continuing to the point that went and cruz dropped out of the race and it was clear trump was going to be the nominee, the first thing these two say is in reacting to trump being the
manifested in their work for the way they do their different cases especially when they are working on clinton s emails at the same time they work on the donald trump russia investigation. it is a stretch to imagine those personal feelings would not affect their work. shannon: peter stzrok s attorney says the ig concluded there is no evidence the political views of special agent stzrok and others in the fbi impacted the handling of the clinton email investigation. that is repeatedly what the inspector general says throughout the 568 pages here but you are saying common sense tells you otherwise. how could he know that unless he could crawl inside their minds and examine the mental process? i want to complement the inspector general for something we have been looking forward to, brought forth information on the intel committee, trying to get them from the fbi of the department of justice, we are glad he has done it. some of it is important but we