i m not sure this comports with a story, that this went through don mcgann. it looks like tom dhillon asked a lower level staffer to research this. the president did have the right to do it. that s one deal that s different there, but the other thing is, is it not conceivable here that his legal team was trying to protect him from doing something that they perceived would be damaging to him? the top people that the president has around him in the white house, are people that he trusts and respects, and they present him really, because he s gotten rid of a lot of them. come on. he was told are you going to let me finish we were told at the very beginning are you going to let me finish? no. then i m just going to keep on talking. the president respects the people around him, he s the one that makes the decision. the whole thing that they have to hold things back, this is utterly ridiculous, and just
not have recused himself. he should have protected him from this russia investigation, and this report really shows that to be the case. what s also interesting is that increasingly, you re seeing some folks, his allies, on capitol hill agree with them, that he should not have recused himself, to conservatives today, jim jordan, mark meadows of the house, freedom caucus, both of them coming out and saying very clearly that sessions should not recuse himself, and sessions should resign. but also, an interesting twist is that democrats on the other hand are saying, he should not resign, if he were to resign, presumably trump could put a loyalist in as attorney general, someone who would be in charge of the russia investigation, and that could change things completely. i think we re at a point where democrats don t want sessions to resign. how things change. you hear a story and covered an administration or two. part of the argument, according to michael wolff s book said i want a r
entire truth. president trump won this election. i m sorry that secretary clinton didn t win. you don t get a doover. if you want a doover but jason, it is true that the president came out and said, there was zero contact with any russians, it was after a report we did. then it s like a slow slip, drip, drip. one of those idiots was a former three star general. one was his son. that s why he got fired, because he lied. the rub of the new york times story tonight is, whatever you think of the collusion investigation, that there s a very viable obstruction of justice potential charge against the president and members of his senior team. as a result of what we ve learned from the new york times story tonight, jeff sessions is caught up in that. he s at the very least a witness, based on the attempts to pressure him on recusing himself. he s potentially on the line himself over potential obstruction depending on what he may have due tiesed an aid to
just trying to no, you are. the simple fact is, this president has never properly. at all in his entire year about. i m sorry that you hate the president so much. i don t hate anybody. i m just the guy asking questions. how could you make that judgment that i hate the guy, simply because i ask a question about him because you absolutely started off he hasn t been truthful. let s listen to what jason has to say this. this is a pattern of the president taking multiple steps by his own admission to get in the way, it seems of the russia investigation. he said, for instance, with the firing of james comey, that s why he did it, he instructed his attorney general to try to get rather the white house council to instruct the attorney general or encourage him not to recuse himself, it s part of a pattern here, is it not? it s his prerogative if he wanted to fire the fbi director. there s nothing wrong with that, the legal experts have come on
be a suggestion they were trying to have the true audience be mueller and his team. one would hope mueller and his team are probably much more well versed in this than certainly the nonmedia savvy trump campaign team was, but mueller already knows this. jason, this gets to an essential legal question here. and i should note it s not just michael wolff s book of this air force one meeting crafting a false statement of what that trump tower meeting was about saying it was about russian adoptions when we know it was about dirt on hillary clinton. from a legal standpoint, if a president crafts a false statement about this with his staff members present and then taking part, from a legal standpoint does that constitute instructing subordinates to lie? what it constitutes is instructing subordinates to try to not provide fourthcoming