G20 when they were ready to do that in st. Peterberet etersbur have participated in a meeting that included people from the Obama Administration were in and geneva, but nothing near what is described here. The reaction is pouring in along the part san line, and saying that the newly released documents support their views. And then there was a furious attack on the fbi, and the appointed judges who approved the re quest to surveil page. Lets go right to the shimon on this. Simone, it is more than 400 pages long, and a ton of it is redact and what have we learned from this . Well, we have learned a lot of it because of the political rhetoric surrounding it from the campaign is out there, but re really, this document showcases and highlights just what the fbi was concerned about regarding carter page. They list several reasons why they wanted this warrant, this highly secret warrant, and some of it it says basically that carter page, they believed was an agent of a foreign power. They the
lot of people struggle with including retired fbi agents is the usage of the political opposition research, was that the main crux of this, and when you are looking at the interview that michael issakoff of yahoo! news conducted, you look at a big part of the background information here, and that is what the people are struggling with. hold on, james, because that is what nunez point noutd ted oe warrant, but when i looked at the warrant, itself, it looked mischaracterized in the nunez memo, because it is falling in the general category of carter page denying some of the report os, and th os, and they are pointing to quotes within that yahoo! news article that are backing up the carter page denial, and they are not using it as my understanding of reading the document itself, the application and what was not redacted and it does not look like to me that they are
information from michael page and the reason that they used the michael isikoff report is that he is carter page is making denials and they are false. he tells judy woodruff in 2017 that he had no meetings with the rushl shan officials in 2016 and he has testified in front of the house intelligence committee he had a deputy meeting with the prime minister of rush sharks and he is admitting that he has met the russian ambassador and admits to have met the russian deputy on the moscow trip as well as the december trip, a and that sin for nation the fbi would be providing the judges in addition to information from the wiretaps and the strange categorical denials and the false denials, and they would wanted to know what he is hid g hiding, so it is appropriate to investigate him and keep it going as long as they believe it is useful and the judges believe it is useful. ryan and james, thank you for your expertise here. we appreciate that. and now, president trump s
because there was really no corroboration. but the senator s office this week in trying to fend off reporters kept referring to those allegations. in fact, talked about the allegations about use of a prostitute. prostitutes saying they were part of a political smear, they were false, they were manufactured, they were only reported by a conservative web site. but the problem is in the course of that they had to acknowledge the senator wrote this check to the eye doctor. the eye doctor s office got raided by the fbi. and now this new information about the superpac donations and the help on the port security contract. you know how this goes. it s all accusations at this point. when they have to issue denials that s when everything starts fomenting and makes it a big story. michael always good to see you. the shot seen around the world. what to make of this new picture
ethical questions for the senator at a time he s just become chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. okay. pretty powerful position there. people should know in terms of the senate ethic rules that the cutoff i believe is $250 that you have to report these or in the case of a flight that he took these two flights, he d have to get advance permission to go ahead and do that. he pays them back later. you heard the senator before we got to you. he said that this is all fameless, nameless accusers. is this all political, michael? which is not a stretch, of course. it is washington after all. what s your take? i think this began this was seen by most people initially as potentially at least a political smear. there were allegations that first popped up on a conservative web site that the senator was getting sexual fa r favors in the dominican republic with his trips with dr. melgen. no responsible news organization reported those at the time,