is there a possibility that the olympics n. thinking about it, it actually makes the whole prospect more frightening, more people, an entire international communi community vulnerable to whatever north korea would want to do, and could the pending olympics push negotiations forward? i don t want to discount the possibilities that joe just outlined for you, they are possibilities. what i don t see is the ability to take advantage of them or the willingness to take advantage. what i see is a president tweeting and doing quid pro quos and matching everything kim jong-un does. this vigilant ace coming up is the latest case in point. this is a very, very antagonistic, sticking our finger in kim jong-un s eye
america who doesn t see what everybody else sees. there s such a trail by now of associated meetings with russians for quid pro quos, hiding what did happen, and then admitting that it happened. and you know, his pattern seems to be less like a president, and more like the thugs that he associated with in organized crime in new york. and the tactics that he picked up from roy cohn are evident and so visible to the public that it s lake you have to be from another planet or never seen this kind of thing to believe that anything that he s doing is innocent. you re pressuring people to cut out of an investigation, when they re making disclosures to the public that implicate him in a conspiracy. i don t think very many people believe what they hear from the white house, and we have a pinocchio president on all other issues, so why do we think the one that he s the center of the investigation, he s going to be any better? susan, i want to ask you about blackwater founder we, er
hiding what did happen, and then admitting that it happened. and you know, his pattern seems to be less like a president, and more like the thugs that he associated with in organized crime in new york. and the tactics that he picked up from roy cohn are evident and and so visible from the planet, to believe anything he s doing is innocent. you re pressuring people to cut off an investigation when they re making disclosures to the public that implicate him in a conspiracy. i don t think very many people believe what they hear from the white house. and we have a pinocchio president on all other issues. so why do we can think when he s the center of the investigation he s going to be any better. being grilled on his meeting
rarely prosecuted but a law. and two, get around quid pro quos or deal with other foreign nations not legal. so we should also say that there were a couple of mentions of senior transition officials. uh-huh. those mentioned could both be jared kushner, potentially, right? or could be another member of the transition team, but very senior or at a senior level? a very small group of people? it s a very small group of people and i observe this reporting on the case for some time as you have. bob mueller doesn t speak through the press. he doesn t leak. he speaks only through the actions of these lawful materials, in this case these informations, and these other lawful documents that come out, under the laws. these have to come out. the only reason they re out. one thing that has to come out in the course of a corroborating agreement or you go before the courts bep have open courts. this is notable, the breaking news just reported from nbc news, that bob mueller has put
counsel he was receiving at the time he was filling them out. it is very hard to say. it would be very risky to try to do this intentionally and leave those off because as we know, leaks happen. leaks that happened today in paradise papers are not that surprising think given what is going on. it would be very risky, intentional or not, it s hard to say. more broadly when you look at the post reporting and names and contacts, there is a cascade here. doesn t mean it s criminal cascade, may just be unusual republican administration warmer towards russia than others. we pointed out that some people want warmer relations with cuba or iran orb other controversial countries. where do you draw the line between unusual foreign policy and bigger problem? i think there s an issue here because seeing suggestions of perhaps quid pro quos involved.