anyway. garrett, this new york times piece is not a headline the white house would like to have to talk about. they clearly denied the reported words were used. what more are they saying? the white house went right back to their core playbook for this kind ever thinof things, t statement from sarah sanders denying the guts of this story. the smear of the new york times in the back half of this story. and the white house has essentially changed the subject. they re not engaging with the story. the president s not on camera today, neither are any of his top aides. the president has been tweeting about his ongoing feud with senior leadership with the fbi, singling out andrew mccabe. in a series of tweets this afternoon, they ve decided, or at least the president has, that that is a conversation they would rather have, than defending themselves against the claims in this new york times
than offset by her disastrous decision to borrow more than 10 million bucks from a bank to buy a massive new campus the school did not need and could not afford. sanders assumed the new campus would be paid for with a surge in enrollment and big donations. in fact, it is possible she was so confident in her plan, she fudged the numbers on her loan application. the fbi is looking into that. that is the whole point for the investigation apparently. naturally, the money and the students never paralyzed, perhaps because she has thrown the school s academics into turmoil. pretty much from the moment the long cleared, burlington college was doomed. she was fired in 2011. three years later, the college was dipping into a scholarship fund just to keep the lights on. the same year, the school s accreditor put on probation because of its bad finances. finally, in 2016, the place closed. and it statement, blamed the whole thing on the crushing weight of the debt from jane sanders expansion. in o
than offset by her disastrous decision to borrow more than 10 million bucks from a bank to buy a massive new campus the school did not need and could not afford. sanders assumed the new campus would be paid for with a surge in enrollment and big donations. in fact, it is possible she was so confident in her plan, she fudged the numbers on her loan application. the fbi is looking into that. that is the whole point for the investigation apparently. naturally, the money and the students never paralyzed, perhaps because she has thrown the school s academics into turmoil. pretty much from the moment the long cleared, burlington college was doomed. she was fired in 2011. three years later, the college was dipping into a scholarship fund just to keep the lights on. the same year, the school s accreditor put on probation because of its bad finances. finally, in 2016, the place closed. and it statement, blamed the whole thing on the crushing weight of the debt from jane sanders expansion. in o
was saying that rod rosenstein wrote a memo giving reasons why the fbi director, james comey, should be fired, but then the president tweeted out that he fired him because of the russia investigation. these things do not help, but i go back to the special prosecutor. i think he has an obligation. one thing, all these leaks coming out. i don t think he is leaking, but either someone on his team or i want to see it statement that leakers will be fired and prosecuted if that s possible. jon: there is way too much information coming out of that office. they have to be very careful. we re not trying to redo that 2016 election through the courts, and there s an obligation. jon: i want to based on another issue. the hot race in georgia that is nasty ahead of tomorrow s vote, what do you think the good people of georgia. does sixth district i think.
you confirm or deny that, is that story true? t statement from craig murray. a friend of mine, he s been he several times. wikileaks is a source protection organization. we are famous for never having. exposed one of our sources over ten years, that s why sources trust us and they come to us. i can t comment on other people s statements about our sources except to say what we have said, which is that our sources are not state parties. sean: it gets more mysterious by the minutes. if it was true, we don t know yet, if it was true that seth rich gave wikileaks the dnc emails, wouldn t that blow the russian collusion narrative that the media has been pushing out of the water? here with reaction is jay, sekulow. i look at this and with all that we heard with no evidence, none, admiral rogers and james