went out. is that still in effect? no, it is- went out. is that still in effect? no, it is not. i went out. is that still in l effect? no, it is not. was went out. is that still in - effect? no, it is not. was the erson effect? no, it is not. was the person struck effect? no, it is not. was the person struck by effect? no, it is not. was the person struck by the - effect? no, it is not. was the person struck by the officer s| person struck by the officer s shot? person struck by the officer s shot? . , , person struck by the officer s shot? ., , , ., person struck by the officer s shot? ., , , ., ., ., shot? that s still an ongoing investigation shot? that s still an ongoing investigation and shot? that s still an ongoing investigation and we - shot? that s still an ongoing investigation and we are - shot? that s still an ongoing j investigation and we are still working the details out. itruiiiiii working the details out. will all schools working the details out. will a
responsibility on the media to get it right and not make mistakes. and there is a responsibility on people outside of trump himself to accept that no one is person effect. people make mistakes and the administration can learn from them and be better as a result. this administration takes every challenge as a criticism and that s not good either. howie: isn t there a lot of liberal distrust of the media for not being aggressive enough. train they complain that the media is owned by corporate and they don t showed wall street sufficiently accountable. those on the left want to beat up on donald trump. so you make no one happy at this point.
targeting conservatives, but the destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice is a very different problem. the first thing i thought is the obstruction of justice and the way they destroyed the evidence, or potentially destroyed it. it s a huge problem. but you know, they ve been telling us, dana, there isn t a conspira conspiracy. but when you have in writing the irs chief saying, hide things, doesn t that undermine their whole argument? and if there isn t a reason to keep any secrets or if there s nothing to hide, why do you need to keep secrets? one other thing that she said is there was an internal chat that they were using, the microsoft chat. lois lerner inquired whether the chat would be able to be salvaged and reported. when someone wrote back and said, no, it s not, she wrote back, person effect. why would you respond that way if there was nothing to hide. i think she s in this position because she isn t the typical mechanical pencil cracking number-crunching kind of g