trump, not because i did anything wrong. the facts are not about john brennan speaking out nap is not what pthd said. he wants to muzzle an investigation. he likes it because mfanafort i on trial, and the president wants to say that i am a victim. to your point, there is a reason for the individuals to have security clearances. there are a couple things to understand. they re not going in weekly and sitting down at computers to comb through intelligence. they re senior, career intelligence officer that s have a wealth of knowledge and experience. often times the individuals coming into the offices don t have the same amount of experience and knowledge related to issues that are ongoing.
of republicans now agree with trump s unhinged claim that the press is the enmy of the people. numbers of independents and democrats disagree. there is a bigger problem when the american pthd uses the bully pull p president uses the bully pulpit. vladimir putin claimed the serious chemical attacks were fake news. reports that he executed 1300 prisoners. m miduro, in moyanmamyanmar, a se official saying they have not
purpose. word is being used as a sort of catchall term. he s only technically right when he saying it s not criminal. legal experts say under u.s. code collusion is federal crime only applicable under antitrust law. that is a collaborative agreement usually secret among roo rivals. basically it s price fixing and bid rigging. but what is a crime is conspiracy. under the federal conspiracy statute a crime is committed when two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the united states or to defraud the united states or any agency thereof in in any manner or any purpose. robert mueller has already use thd against paul manafort. obstruction, one of the topics mueller wants to talk to trump about. according to part of title 18 of the u.s. code, someone obstructs
don t like it. but conclusions do matter. if we are going to trust the inspector general who is supposed to take this nonbiased approach, then who do we trust? sandra: i want to get byron to respond to that because i know when i spoke to you earlier. earlier, we were talking about peter strzok and whether or not he was officially going to testify. now not only to see peter strzok up there and answering questions to members of congress, but finally hear the stories. i mean this could be very revealing testimony. exactly. first on the issue of it being a handful to the people in evolved, maybe there was a handful of people but unfortunately they included the director of the fbi, and that the director of the fbi and thd investigator. very important handful. now lawmakers have been trying for months to get this to
he got an equally broad security commitmentm the united ates, very vague. but what he really got was the opportunity for the first time to be on the international stage as an equal. the president of thd states and all the trappings and flags designed to make him look like an equal, something that his father and grandfather had sought for years to achieve and never did. and more seriously, what he got was the president s unilateral commitment to end what the president called war games with our south korean allies on the peninsula. the fact remains that this was a bigger success by most objective measures for north korea than it was for the united states. i recognize that you wouldn t see it that way if you were simply to listen to president trump s spin on all of this. but in substance, i think that s a fair assessment. president trump says that