that is a big problem in this country it is very important that the attorney general and the state attorney general look at this, which they are reportedly going to be doing in the next few weeks. i would also think that congress would look very closely at this. lisa: i guess the question is it the role of the federal government and attorney general to get involved with a private sector business. that s a great point obviously the first amendment doesn t apply to private industry it only applies to the government. one thing i would look at here are democratic candidates, for example, being given favorable treatment on these sites over their republican opponent? if that s the case? that could be a campaign contribution, a corporate campaign contribution. now it s a novel theory. but that is something i would look at to see if there is anything that might be there worth investigating. steve: ian prior used to be at the doj. thank you ver. lisa: thank you ian. steve: interesting stuff.
someone who s currently a government employee versus someone and as robert points out, there s a principle of cause that s always been honored. you don t go willy nilly yanking it for political reasons. one concern that the president should be having is he s somewhat adding to the atmospherics of his attempts to do obstruction in public. that s something that when the special counsel is looking at the twitter activity involves that notion of whether he can obstruct justice by doing things publicly to give himself cover that way. it will be a novel theory. i don t think many prosecutors would want to pursue it, but this type of thing adds fuel to that fire. john brennan, he s not at all backing down. in fact, if anything, he s kind of digging in his heels, threatening potential, you know, filing a case. but he also said that trump s press conference with vladimir putin in helsinki, he called that treasonous. this is how he put it today.
questions we weren t able to answer based on this novel theory of executive privilege. first of all, can someone claim executive privilege for things that happened before president trump became president. again, i think this will probably keep the lawyers busy but i have never heard of an example where executive privilege claimed for a president elect. and between two people who don t include the president. and this raises issues whether we will get straight answers from anybody who is or was associated with the administration or is associated with the transition. so he is claiming executive privilege not for conversations just between him and the president but between him and jared kushner and ivanka trump or anybody in the white house. that is the claim.
here s a perfect example, no one knows who she is. dan does because this is what you do for a living. she signed on this brief. i should say what the brief was. basically, a bunch of states got together and tried pursue the litigation strategy of the states that support tobacco. you ve created this problem that has created a huge threat in public safety. and they basically supplied a legal reasoning. i m right about this, right? uh-huh. you re looking at this like i m getting it completely wrong. doing this from memory. so they tried this somewhat novel, but not off-the-charts novel theory that she was the attorney general of the state of the new york. she signed off on that. it wasn t even her argument. she was representing a client. representing a client, the state of the new york. exactly. and it s true that republicans are trying to make guns the next litmus test. and that anything that any
molested her that was opening statement. now there is the suggestion that he has denied, through you, of a mistress. i m unclear whether that would even come in under any legal theory. i m not sure how it would come in either. certainly, this person crystal hallow way, also goes by river cruz. the previous counsel i ve identified my client never had anything to do with her in december it was brought up again in we came out with a statement then. recently miss cruz was seen in court under subpoena. i haven t seen her since. certainly george has not changed his testimony or miss statements that he never had an affair with this woman. never took any money from this woman. and certainly never confided in this woman. greta: what is