they may well say that. and i m sure republicans will say that. the answer is, it s going forward anyway. i mean, that s the key fact here, is that the that the house democrats are doing these investigations. preet s old office, the u.s. attorney s office, is doing an investigation of the business interests of the trump family and the inauguration, what went on there. that, effectively, cannot be stopped. and it can be criticized, it will be and it will no doubt be, but it s going forward and we ll see where it leads. you know, your question, anderson, to jeff, actually, i think, makes it an important point. and that is, you know, these chairman, who have laid down the gauntlet and are speaking in a very strong way and are saying their ambits are very broad, they need to be careful. because, yes, it s true that they can do what they want and they have the gavel now and they can behave like devin nunes behaved, but over time, you know, belief in them and whether or not they re doi
out. robert traynham, let me have you respond to that about these attacks on freedom of the press and free speech. what are the ramifications of that, as you see it? it s the pillar of transparency. don t you find it ironic that a former fbi chief is talking about the need for transparency and talking about the need for free press? james comey, i ve never met him before, but to my knowledge, he s a true patriot and someone who has always put the country first and someone who has put american values and american troops first and foremost. it sounds like he is kind of teaching us, if you will, reminding us, if you will, about those truths and sending a message to the white house by saying, mr. president, yet again, please, please rise up to the occasion and put american values first and please be american. does this make him more of a target in a way? we ve seen pete bharara out on
was mr. bharara conducting any other investigations of president trump, his family or administration officials at the time he was fired. if so, what was the nature of these investigations? were you aware of them when he was fired? was president trump aware of them when he was fired? were other white house or justice department officials aware of that at the time pete bharara was fired? in other words, we know what you have said about this matter. we d now like to have actual information. the senators are looking for a response from the attorney general by monday. we ll see. the department of justice is a little busy right now. washington post breaking a bombshell exclusive story today that the trump administration, including the justice department, tried to block the testimony of former acting attorney general sally yates in the trump russia investigation. sally yates and two other former administration officials were due to testify at an open hearing today in the house
to answer such as, quote, why was mr. barrara fired? two, which white house or justice department officials are responsible for the decision to fire him? three, was he involved in or conducting an investigation of secretary tom price at the time he was fired. secretary tom price was reportedly buying and selling stocks in health care companies while he was simultaneously sponsoring and voting on legislation that would affect the stock price of those companies. it s been previously reported that pete bharrara s office was investigating that as a potential criminal corruption case when bharara was suddenly fired with no explanation. if bharrara was investigating secretary price at the time he was fired, were you aware of that investigation? was president trump aware of that investigation? were other white house or justice department officials aware of that at the time mr. bharara was fired? then the big one.
46 u.s. attorneys who served under president obama. the move is not uncommon as new administrations often clear out political appointees from the previous president but it s usually done gradually. in a stunning turn of events prominent new york prosecute your pete bharara was fired as he refused to resign. we had a good meeting, i said i would absolutely consider staying on. i agreed to stay on. i have already spoken to senator sessions who as you know the nominee to be the attorney general. he also asked that i stay on and so i expect i ll be continuing to work. joining me is matt miller, former justice department spokesman under eric holder. how are you doing? i m good. is there a reason why anyone should be concerned about this? it is typical for sort of a cleaning house of political appointees, is this much ado about nothing? no, i don t think it is.