as we mentioned, the president tweeted up a storm over the weekend, and john brennan, the former cia director under president obama, also took to twitter, not just to blast the president s firing of andrew mccabe, but to blast the president personally. quote, when the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. you may scapegoat andy mccabe, but you will not destroy america. america will triumph over you. back now with the panel. asha, pretty harsh words from john brennan. yeah, and let s remember that he was a part of the early stages of, you know, some of this investigation. he s the one who called his or met or called his counterpart in russia to say, stand down
specifics, more granularity on the topics they would like to discuss with the president if an interview happens. that includes anything under the umbrella of the firing of james comey and michael flynn and what the president knew regarding michael flynn s conversations with russian ambassador sergey kislyak this past december. also jeff sessions and his role in the firing of james comey. so these are new details about what robert mueller s team is interested in speaking to the president about, going beyond what we ve known previously, and also it signals, anderson, that robert mueller s team is still very much interested in learning what the president knew about certain issues and possible collusion and obstruction of justice. and it signals that potentially this investigation is far from over. as we know, an interview hasn t happened. there has been ongoing negotiations between the president trump s team and robert mueller s team, but i m told by a source familiar that the president i
order, who was assigned by adr. so they know what they ve got. they have a known quantity in arbitration. why wouldn t it would actually be malpractice for them not to compel it at this point because they know the arbitrator assigned is going to do something. keep in mind the arbitration conversation really is about this agreement whereas i think her lawyer is making this a much bigger conversation. it s not just this question of was it signed by the president? it s also the question of has maco michael cohen said things that nullify the agreement. i think he s right too, and anderson knows this, i think. but my guess is there is documentary evidence that they don t want out. otherwise, they would not be fighting this. that s part. agreement too, right? yeah. the president attached himself onto this case when it switched to federal court. why would he do that if, according to michael cohen, this has nothing to do with the president? there s a new lawyer. the new lawyer is
california state law is a lot more favorable to various kinds of ins and outs or kind of threading the needle to get out of arbitration. that s not the case under the federal arbitration act, certainly not the case in the central district. generally judges are going to lean towards, if you entered into a bargain and you said that arbitration was going to be the way to resolve it, they re going to send you to arbitration. and, anne, the president s team want arbitration not only because it s in the contract, but because it s out of public view? completely. first of all, i think federal courts generally do uphold arbitration agreements and i m sorry. they do uphold these types of arbitration agreements. so there s no question that in federal court, this is much more likely to go in the president s lawyers directions. it s part of the nondisclosure agreement. they want to be in a small room with one person, out of public view. you re not litigating in a public courtroom. they ve a
so it just wasn t talked about. i think the president is now facing the reality that there is really no good way out at this moment. this investigation is moving like burning wood toward the white house, and as gloria mentioned before, there s a subpoena to the trump organization. there s the questions that mueller wants to ask. he now knows that mccabe had written memos, and his legal team, in addition to giving him false promises, have probably also told him i mean they probably made it clear that he could get into trouble with this interview, that he can t talk his way out of it the way he did with the new york times or when he talks to the press. so i m sure that makes him very nervous, and he thinks that he can win this in the court of public opinion. and that way he doesn t have to fight it in a court of law. and if he doesn t testify, he has to have a good reason for it. and the reason is, why would i testify before these corrupt people? i agree. just for a reality che