the truth, could even have been charged with lying to prosecutors. here we don t have to worry about that. right, i agree. according to everyone this investigation is coming to a close. the thing that concerns mr. trump s attorneys is going to be mueller knows the answers to the question he s getting so they need to be meticulous in the way they answer them. as richard said, lawyers will edit these answers meticulously so they do not ask those into any type of prosecution for the limited questions is answered. he s only answering questions from anything prior to the election as president elect is not questions as it pertains to obstruction of justice charges because i don t really think any answer those questions because mueller could prosecute if he so chose based upon tweets potentially are others public statements. arthel: why wouldn t these
desire to reduce the american footprint in the world. we david ignatius, they get headlines like the one of the new york post talking about historic summ but again, as richard said, the devil is in the details. nobody knows where this is going to go, inchose two men shaking hands right now. joe, it is a historic. it is i think to be fair a breakthrough, a breakthrough especially for kim jong-un. he has gotten what s been a north korean goal now for many decades, an american president to sit down, to grant what amounts to recognition of north korean aspirations. the weak part of the agreement that they have signed is that, as richard says, i the barest framework and the hardest questions that torpedoed past u.s. efforts to deal with the threatening north korean
fareed, do you agree with that? i agree, but i think the point that richard makes is very important, which is that the north koreans have gotten to the point they wanted to get. for 25 years, they have been pursuing a path to a robust nuclear capacity with intercontinental ballistic missiles. they ve gotten there. now they want to negotiate, and presumably the negotiation would involve further freezes and such. if trump can really get them to massively reverse the program, if he can get them to do what the iran nuclear deal looks like, which is which is to freeze in a pre-weapon stage, that will be a big accomplishment. they would then be giving up 25 years of what they ve given up. my guess is going in they want to do exactly what richard said, which is to keep the gains they had and no more tests. they aren t going to keep going, but they want to freeze some large part of what they have.
this makes this whole middle east thing much more complicated and dangerous. heidi, give us the up side, down side of this decision. the up side it s a pure political decision. we re trying to ask ourselves why, why would this happen. like richard says, this was supposed to be the final payoff in terms of any final agreement between the israelis and the palestinians. and it seems to be not only against what all of our allies are saying, both in the muslim world and in europe, but as well against the advice of some of the president s closest national security advisers, including mattis. like richard said, those settlements in the east, that s nothing compared to this giveaway. and yet mattis himself is on the record calling those settlements creating apartheid and saying the united states pays a great price for doing this, so that brings you back to the political calculation here. if this is a president who is basically ticking through some of his campaign promises and doing it in a
that s a slam dunk. alex, this is the second time she s under fire for the hatch act. first time is when she plunked ivanka products. this is what the white house said after that happened. upon completion of inquiry, we concluded miss conway acted inadvertently, is highly unlikely to do it again. here we are again. is she in trouble with the white house now? clearly she was doing an interview, asked a question and answered it. as richard said, the hatch act clearly states you can t advocate for or against a candidate. and in that interview it is hard to watch that without seeing that she advocated for roy moore and against the democrat. so i think it is going to be a difficult argument for the white house to make to say that she wasn t in violation. we ll see how it plays out. but it is hard to listen to that and not see that she s walking a fine line here in a gray area. thank you as always. appreciate your time and