as an american public and it would appear the dni and the cia director through russian media accounts and russian intermedia intermediaries, no good, i guess? well, i mean, nicole, tell me a time whenever you ve seen president trump speak for 15 minutes about substance. never. i m guessing he was getting his honey-do list for the month. i mean, never. the notion that he could sit and talk about the sea of azov with president putin is laughable, i think. the problem here is if, you know, policy is not a personal process. it involves the entire u.s. government, our military, our diplomats, our intelligence agencies. by doing this in private with someone like vladimir putin, you re providing him leverage to use against us in the future. let me ask you something. donald trump said something super weird. he defended the soviet invasion of afghanistan and everyone was scratching their heads, like, that s not on fox & friends or fox prime. where d he hear that? i don t know, he does
recognition of a white house summit. and people around the president, even his own intelligence community and some of his closest advisers are putting up the stop sign like, sir, this is not a good idea and yet, to this point, the president is willing to delay it but not been willing to rule out happening. look how happy he is in the white house with russians, lavrov and kislyak. the optics are so confusing and any normal administration, they would be, like, listen these pictures came to us from the russian foreign ministry of an american president in the oval office. looking gleeful. so, in any normal administration, you would simply say, the optics of this are terrible. let s not do this. let s let this cool down. that s to a real friend that you want to cover up. this is a real adversary. yes, and then on top of that, i just keep coming back to your question, which is, how are people supposed to do their jobs? if you don t know what your boss agreed to, how are you the
that nothing bad has happened yet. but what you re describing is really almost like what steve bannon articulated which was dismantling the state. yes. they have had some success, unfortunately, in doing that, and you know, what s your sense of what would happen if we had a real crisis? so, the problem is, and i hear a lot of people say, like, if a real crisis happens, this will rally people around trump. no, they say he ll act normal. he s never acted normal before. how do you know he ll act normal? he won t because this is normal for him. this behavior that s erratic and insane and i think at this point if something terrible were to happen, i say this as somebody who s getting on the flight to go to the super bowl, which is a national security event, this country will not rally around this president. they ll blame him. they ll see the government shutdown. that s a great point. i don t want to let that sound go, because the president named brennan, clapper, hayden, comey,
again. there s nothing more sacred than our democratic process, we re starting a new presidential cycle, 2020, i m going to be involved, we know what happened last time, we want to play it fair, we want no outside interference. president trump has yet to do that. social securiit s not a smok it s damn convincing circumstantial evidence that donald trump not only green lit russia s history with the 2016 election but he s involved in coordination or contact, let s not use the toward collusion, by his conduct as president. he obviously isn t concerned about it because there s a certain way ek envision trump as an egomaniac who s like, no, no, no, i won fair and square and i want you to prove that the russians had nothing to do with the it. the way he s gotten so angry at any suggestion, it makes it abundantly clear he knows they were involved. he knows that person one, person two, person three, roger stone, somebody was involved and providing this kind of information and the real conc
naive, and that they needed to go back to school. what s interesting also is notice his description, his complaints, it s not evidence based, it s not they were wrong on this and wrong on this and i had to remove them. it s describing a reality show. well, this person had a lover and this person didn t like me and this person sent a mean tweet. that s his description. he doesn t have an analytical reason for having a problem. what concerns me about all this is yes, we ve become somewhat numb to the president s bad behavior but given last year s election and given what s happening now with mcconnell and rebuking him, it is a dis disintegration of the unit we need. you ve got the national security state basically saying, trust us, we re sending secret letters to keep things safe to the new york times or whatever but you don t know who it is. no one is working together. i would almost rather have all our leadership working together to do the wrong thing than to have four different sec