classified information and privileged communications. mr. comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers. today mr. comey admitted that he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the president. the leaks of this privileged information began no later than march 2017 when friends of mr. comey have stated that he disclosed to them the conversations that he had with the president during their january 27th, 2017 dinner and february 14th, 2017 white house meeting. today mr. comey admitted that he leaked to friends of his purported memos of those privileged communications, one
statute trumps the first one you just described. but my concern was not an ina concern here. it rather was a constitutiol concern. whether or not this the executive order here violated the constitution specifically with the establishment clause and equal protection and due process. there is no doubt the arguments you laid out are arguments we can expect litigants to bring, partisan litigants who disagree with the policy decision of the president. i would note on january 27th, 2017, the department of justice issued an official legal decision, a determination by the office of legal counsel, that the executive order, and i ll quote from the opinion, the proposed order is approved with respect to form and legality. that s a determination on january 27th it was legal. three days later you determined using your own words, that although they have opined on legality, it had not addressed
united states signed by former cia director michael hayden and former secretary of state john kerry, among others, it says they recognize the importance of thorough vetting adding, quote, we all are nevertheless unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban established by the executive order issued on january 27th, 2017. we view the order as one that undermines the national security of the united states rather than making it safer. washington state s attorney general told fox s dan springer the problems with the order go beyond national security. the president is not adhering to the constitution when it comes to his executive action. it is my responsibility as attorney general to defend the rule of law. as soon as we get word on that decision, bill, we ll bring it right to you. bill: catherine, thank you. melissa: syndicated columnist caut hammer speaking out about the travel ban saying
that would incriminate the president. and so as trey gowdy, who had seen this several months ago, it s the best exhibit a defense of president trump. hmm. not sure about that. because like the nunez memo, this latest gambit by the president s allies has backfired in a spectacular fashion. the memos, if anything, bolster the credibility of comey s account, showing that his story about his interactions with the president has been remarkably consistent. the demand for loyalty, the urging to let michael flynn go, the pressure on comey to publicly clear the president in the russia probe. the memos also provide a new window on the president s bizarre and perplexing relationship to vladimir putin. and on his utter fixation with the most salacious claim in the steele dossier, you know the one i m talking about. according to comey recalling his private dinner with the president on january 27th, 2017, the president said flynn had just informed him about the call from putin while british prim
the loyalty oaths. the us versus them world view. the lying about all things large and small in service to some code of loyalty that put the organization above morality and above the truth. the former fbi director also details that january 27th, 2017, that dinner at the white house on that night with president trump. the washington post points out, quote, as the dinner concluded, trump returned to the issue of loyalty. i need loyalty, trump tells comey according to the book. you will always get honesty from me, comey replies. that s what i want, honest loyalty, trump said, reaching what comey writes was some sort of deal in which we were both winners. and phil rucker sums it up this way, quote, the book is an indictment of trump s presidency as well as of his character. each chapter can be interpreted as an elaborate trolling of trump starting with the title a