the answer is probably not. that doesn t mean he did it. that doesn t mean he didn t do it. it does mean there s a way, using the fbi s vast resources, to get answers to some of these questions and to either confirm or refute the allegations against judge kavanaugh. it puzzles me why they won t do that. the fbi would need the white house to request it because it s a background check. there s a lots of people who keep saying that the fbi has no reason to do this and that they have no place to do it and this is not things that they do do. can you give us a little bit more context and clarity about what the fbi does and does not do. this is things that they do do. this is all the time. background investigations are done for any man or woman going to hold a senior position in the u.s. government. we want to know there are good character. we want to know their background. this happens all the time. what also happens all the time
do. why do you think the president refuses to say anything negative to vladimir putin? it puzzles all of us. i can tell you it s not just that he won t say anything bad about putin, but he does say disparaging and belittling things about our allies. we saw that at the g7 and again at the nato summit. then we see it, you know, with regard to the russians and what he s willing to do in terms of praising dictators, speaking fondly of them. it just is puzzling to awful us. do you think russia has compromising information on the president? i have no way of knowing that. i certainly myself, i doubt it. but i have no way of knowing that. do you have any other reasonable explanation for why he would behave this way? i don t. i m trying to figure it out myself. i think it s puzzled all of us. but it doesn t feel too good, i m sure, for the intelligence agencies and for the others to be thrown under the bus like this.
deliver a searing floor speech tomorrow. he s going to compare the president s attacks on the media to the rhetoric of the notorious 20th century soviet dictator joseph stalin. flake clarified the remarks he is planning to make it. joseph stalin was a killer, our president is not. it puzzles me as to why you would use a phrase so loaded and that has such deeper meaning, the press being the enemy of the people. that is a big concern. what this president does, the most powerful man in the world has lasting implications. it has implications for journalists worldwide as well as our free press year in this country. harris: i tell you, it doesn t take much history to know about stalin, how do you accidentally use that word? its hyperbole to get attention.
leader. moments ago he talked to christiane amanpour and denied his speech is to compare trump to the russian dictator. i m in no way comparing president trump to joseph stalin. stalin was a killer. our pr our president is not. it puzzles me why you would use a phrase so loaded and steeper meaning the press being the enemy of the people and so that is a big concern political analyst and historian and douglas brinkley, cnn presidential historian. thank you both for being here. you heard the sound from senator flake trying to clarify but it sounds to me nevertheless he does plan to invoke joseph stalin s name in speaking about our president from the floor of the senate, which i still think is pretty darn remarkable.
innocent, it puzzles me that his best friends in the media are trashing a good and honorable man. i m not trashing a good and honorable man. what i m saying to you, is that in the end, if bob mueller were here and being honest, he would say i don t need this static. and as good as andrew weisman or peter strzok may be, i don t need this. i think he ll be fair about coming to his conclusions and only prove the facts of the investigation. you don t have to be it doesn t have to be peter strzok. he s gone. but it is an indication. nicole, the problem is it s an indication of a failure of the vetting system for the people that were being brought on, you cannot tell me that this would not be a more credible