the vice cheryl of the committee to pre strength president from doing just that. and i want to read this tweet from the president over the weekend. study late joseph mccarthy. we are now in a period with mueller and his gang that makes joseph mccarthy look like a baby. rigged witch hunt. what would it look like if republicans on the hill reared up and said, enough. what would it look like if the president pulled a few more critical security clearances, for example? at this point, brian, based on my reporting, the republican party, they re fully with president trump ahead of the mid-term elections to drag them across the finish line as they face possible blue wave. at this point some people are privately grumbling if the
with what trump has done. phil mudd at cnn does what we do all day long. he is emotional, a patriot, as he terrific spokesperson. as a lifelong cia operative for the intelligence community. tomorrow, it may be someone else on the other end of the president s twitter feed. what do you make of brennan s flirtation with legal action? do you think there s a there, there? i think it was interesting that the president welcomed a lawsuit from brennan. in part because he seems to have interpret pretty as though brennan would be suing him personally. when in fact i think what brennan would do is probably more narrow in its scope. he would perhaps appear before a judge to make the case that his security clearance was revoked for political reasons and not through proper channels. what i think that could tee up is a decision before the courts as to whether or not they should
somehow limit the president s authority to revoke security clearances. because there isn t really a great deal of legal precedent for the packs the president has taken. and i think to the question of what might happen on capitol hill, mark warner, the top democrat on the senate intelligence committee did introduce an paemd would pre strength president from revoking security clearances. it s not clear that it would even come up for a vote let alone pass the senate. if he is going on start to strip more security clearances, then there may be more support for some sort of response. or at least being more clear on whether or not he has that authority. i think your point is exactly right. the president s comments about the discovery process and what could be learned, i think, go back to the time of lawsuit he is used to in new york and not the kind of legal case this would be if brennan goes forward with it.
actually do any collusion or conspiracy across the table, that somehow that wasn t conspiracy. of course, that s not how it was set up. it was them coming on behalf of the russian government to say we ll be doing this and in response we want sanctions relief which is exactly what they ended up getting. and what happened next? donald trump mentioned those e-mails after they were released in october. 150 times. an average of five times a day. it was a central part of his closing argument as part of the final 30 days of the presidential campaign. and there again we get on read the e-mail from this goldstone who is kind of a barney character from overseas, laying out the stakes of the meeting. i know the feds have the equivalent of blinders and bose head phones in mueller s office. what must they make, however, of these repeated and different attempts at cover stories for the meeting? it s never good when you re
he s only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40 s. president trump s legal team is working hard to spin the 2016 trump tower meeting between russians and key members of the trump campaign, including but not limited to, his son. on sunday, among other things, rudolph giuliani said that trump s team did not know that