into the medical marijuana industry, which they were certainly trying to do in nevada and has caused an investigation in that state. and david, what s the status of that reporting? well, we know from the indictment filed in new york that parnas and fruman and his business partners had a multistate marijuana license strategy, where they were working with a foreign investor to distribute as much as $2 million to politicians in the u.s. in the hopes of purchasing influence. i know that they spoke to at least three or more people in florida about trying to make contact with the nearly two dozen companies that hold licenses to produce, grow, and distribute marijuana in the state. those licenses can be worth a lot of money. one is up for sale for $55 million right now. so they were trying to invest. when it came time, in any of these conversations that showed that they had the money, they
knew anything about any of this. if it was indeed going on. that people were trying to purchase influence or not. i mean, you know, it is inauguration. generally the president talked about purchasing influence when he was a civilian with politicians. so maybe it was okay. in fairness, he talked about it in the context of donating under the legal limits. but that also speaks to the broader question of reforming all of these. shimon, it is the thing is did people break laws in doing this. it s not just that people were buying tables because they wanted to get a photo or wanted to somehow get influence with the president. it s who these people were and were laws followed. right, and think about this. the russians were running an influence campaign with the camp against the campaign, right? and then all of a sudden, if there is this russian money that was coming in to the campaign or into the inauguration,
you know, there s a wink, wink, nod, nod, and then there s an actual request for a quid pro quo that might be a little bit more clear and illegal. and we don t know if donald trump knew anything about any of this. if it was, indeed, going on, that people were trying to purchase influence or not. i mean, we just it s his inauguration, generally, the president donald trump has talked about purchasing influence when he was a civilian with politicians. so maybe it was okay. in fairness, he talked about it in the context of donating under the legal limits. right, absolutely, i m not implying anything else. i know, i know, but that also speaks to the broader question of reforming all of these. shimon, it is the thing is did people break laws in doing this. it s not just that people were buying tables because they wanted to get a photo or wanted to somehow get influence with the president. it s who these people were and were laws followed?
country as secretary of state. this is a good opportunity for donald trump to close off a massive side door for purchasing influence and say i won t allow that. john: he mentioned last week that she raised so much and spent so much during the election than he did and he still won the office. a lot of wealthy donors probably expected something in return from a clinton white house, he doesn t have a lot of big-money donors supporting candidates. after an election like this you start selling off the ambassadors of the ships to the donors you like. we are not seeing that with donald trump because there are not many wealthy donors to speak of. in a lot of ways it was a grassroots campaign in terms of fund raising, spent anywhere near the amount she spent mostly by diverging away from traditional and of television