any laws that this was just an issue of trust. now, that is the view of the white house. i guess the question comes what happens moving forward? you heard up on the hill republicans and democrats are sounding eager to hold hearing and that presumes michael flynn would be called to testify if at some point those who control the relevant committees decide the hold the hearings that might be the next chance to get at michael flynn to decide whether he was intentionally misleading the president and president. i think it also raises questions about what we re hearing in the briefing room when you hear the press secretary say the president has been tough on russia, that answer just does not hold water.
briefing was no, that s not the case, that there was an erosion of trust and in the end the president decided his national security adviser could no longer serve in that capacity and had to step aside. i think the other thing that came out of the briefing was there s an acknowledgment that michael flynn was misleading the vice president-elect, advisors and was it intentionally misleading, sean spicer didn t really answer that question, i think the important news was that there was a process according to sean spicer that developed here, when the white house informed the president and at that point the president launched an investigation and it is the view of this white house that during the course of that investigation it was concluded that michael flynn did not break
trusting michael flynn and january 26th when he was first told about what the justice department reported was that michael flynn didn t tell the truth to the vice president and the president himself about the phone call he had with the russian ambassador? what happened in the interim there? we can go out on a limb, i don t think it s that much of a limb to say what happened is it became public. the washington post broke the story on friday that this whole notion happened. or the notion that michael flynn kmul actually did talk about sanctions and seems to me that s the difference and the question is whether or not if this didn t become public starting on friday with the washington post report if michael flynn would still have his job if it didn t get out that he misled the
not exactly what sean spicer just said now that the president asked for and received his resignation after losing confidence and trust in his national security adviser. that s right. and look, that is a key difference and one of many sort of contradictions we are hearing out of the white house, but i think one of the most important things we learned in this briefing and what we did not know going in is when did the president or did he even at all get information at all from the white house counsel that he received now we know january 26th from the justice department that michael flynn did talk about sanctions and so forth? so we know the answer to that is immediately. so that was january 26th. so, couple things. if that s the case, and if trust is the issue, we heard trust trust trust so many times from the podium today. what is the difference between yesterday and the president not
ledger . nice to see you. hi, brooke. we know governor cristie has been very critical of michael flynn. why do you think he s really there. is he there perhaps to give advice how to restore order at this white house? the governor said last night and been saying a little bit it s just a social meeting, don t read too much into it. we know the meeting was scheduled the lunch between governor cristie and first lady was scheduled before the drama of last night, before breitbart news started reporting stories that might be reince priebus is in trouble as well. we heard opioid drug was going to be something to talk about. other points of business, sean