Leslie stahl. Shes a cohost of 60 minutes. Also tonight we have new photos that have been uncovered. They show Franken Groping Huffington during a 2000 photo shoot. Here you can see franken grabbing her breath. The second photo shows are behind and shes rushing to her defense saying they were just having fun in that people shouldnt be offended by the photos. The rest of the Mainstream Media wont tell you this, but this kind of gross behavior is part of a pattern when it comes to al franken. Take a look at this photo from 2000. Franken is seen right there inappropriately touching joy behar while they are on the red carpet together. Just like huffington, she shares his politics and is downplaying the photo and defended his actions. Look, ive known arianna for a long time. She and joy behar, if they dont think anything is wrong with that, that is their choice. But from the outside, it looks kind of creepy. Its probably something most
because he believed in the future president s message a
other way. two law enforcement sources say he was building the pipe bombs in his van. they found soldering equipment, print, paper and other equipment in the van. how do you explain that? we re so preliminary in this case, we have not been told that at all. the things that have floated out in the media haven t been made officially part of a record or an allegation against mr. sayoc. at this point, you know, we have we re criminal defense attorneys representing a gentleman who has been accused. he isn t guilty until a jury finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. it s hard to even process what is real and what isn t real when it comes to evidence against him at this stage. it s really less than two full business days into the case itself. and we were able to just meet with him briefly through a thick
the problem we have, trump is under a cloud, and if he isn t guilty, he sure looks like it the way he interacts with putin. and secondly, he s a horrible negotiator. he got his clock cleaned in north korea, and we ll be lucky, at the end of this meeting in putin, is alaska is one of the 50 states. michael steele, you re a republican. he said vladamir putin may be the easiest meeting i have, based on our experiences with the president and his negotiating, as a president, should we have confidence that putin is just fine? no. i think this is one of the biggest areas of disagreement with most republicans and the president. the president has a very particular and peculiar affection, bromance with president putin, and that s one of the things that makes everyone very, very nervous, even with the possibility of the president meeting one on one with the president of russia. let me give you some new reporting from the new york times. i ll read part of what they re
own behavior. sounds like he s feeling the heat certainly, if what he did was true. but that s the point. he isn t guilty at this point. innocent until proven guilty so the president is saying this is unfair to manafort, he s being treated unjustly. is this fair? well, as we ve said, you know, paul manafort is innocent until proven guilty, but man is he making the government s job easy for him to make this case and if you look back at this acc attack on bob mueller and his team, the genesis of this wasn t bob mueller, it was paul manafort and his actions and reaching out. witness tampering is something you just don t do. these witnesses are sacrosanct. sometimes defense attorneys will look and say, the government has a higher hand here when it comes to witness buzz that s the way it goes and it s not illegal for the team of manafort to be talking to witnesses but if they had done it through the lawyer, that would have been one thing. they re using encrypted communication to have
in america going all the way back to the boston massacre in the 1770s that you are innocent until proven guilty. and that you have the right of a presumption of innocence. and i think, again, if you have somebody like harvey weinstein, who now has so many names out there that it s almost inconceivable that he isn t guilty of a substantial amount of stuff, somebody remembereda that 12 years ago they felt bad. i don t understand the standard that goes into that. and then, how do you prove what really happened, and how do you prove whether or not somebody really meant to do something negative? and i do think we ve got to take a deep breath here and not have the hysteria allow us to start destroying people randomly so that you then set up targets were anybody who wants to can get even by suddenly remembering something that happened 20 years ago. sean: it gets hard too when there is politics in the